Urban Land Uses: Amounts Of Land Used And Needed For Various Purposes By Typical American Cities. An Aid To Scientific Zoning Practice [Reprint 2014 ed.] 9780674188846, 9780674186248

Citation preview

HARVARD CITY PLANNING STUDIES VOLUME I

AIRPORTS Their Location, Administration, and Legal Basis BY

H E N R Y V . H U B B A R D , MILLER McCLINTOCK, A N D F R A N K B . WILLIAMS ASSISTED

BY

PAUL MAHONEY AND HOWARD K. MENHINICK

VOLUME I I

BUILDING HEIGHT, BULK, AND FORM How Zoning Can Be Used as a Protection against Uneconomic Types of Buildings on High-cost Land BY

GEORGE B . ASSISTED

FORD BY

A. B„ RANDALL AND LEONARD COX

VOLUME I I I

NEIGHBORHOODS OF SMALL HOMES Economic Density of Low-cost Housing in America and England BY

R O B E R T W H I T T E N A N D THOMAS A D A M S

VOLUME

IV

URBAN LAND USES Amounts of Land Used and Needed for Various Purposes by Typical American Cities An Aid to Scientific Zoning Practice BY

HARLAND

BARTHOLOMEW

HARVARD CITY PLANNING STUDIES IV

URBAN LAND USES

LONDON: HUMPHREY MILFORD OXFORD U N I V E R S I T Y

PRESS

URBAN L A N D

USES

AMOUNTS OF LAND USED AND NEEDED FOR VARIOUS PURPOSES BY TYPICAL AMERICAN CITIES AN AID TO SCIENTIFIC ZONING PRACTICE

BY

HARLAND BARTHOLOMEW

CAMBRIDGE HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS 1932

COPYRIGHT, 1932 BY HENRY VINCENT HUBBARD CHAIRMAN, HARVARD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF CITY PLANNING ALL BIGHTS BE8BRVED

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

THE

HARVARD

CITY

SERIES

PLANNING

STUDIES

PREFACE

The practice of zoning has spread so rapidly in this country in the last dozen years and municipalities have in so many cases adopted zoning ordinances based on inadequate and far from comprehensive or logical considerations that the time has come to pause in advocating merely zoning as such and to promote a wider understanding of zoning rationalized and related to sound economic policy. It is clearly impossible that all the land in a community should be developed for the uses which the individual landowner might imagine would be most profitable to him, were there no economic laws of supply and demand which must inevitably govern the amounts of land needed for the various purposes and the types of activities engaged in by citizens of any community. This present research URBAN LAND USES is intended as an aid to scientific zoning practice. Its practical value lies in its provision of a method for estimating the total area required for each particular urban use for any given future population of between 5,000 and 300,000 persons. In addition, it should aid municipalities confronted with the problem of determining the desirable extent of city area and the location of future boundaries, since the aggregation of amounts of land needed for each particular use will naturally determine how much peripheral land can economically be absorbed. T o the landowner, realtor, and banker, as well as to municipal officials and city planning consultants, this Volume I V of the Harvard City Planning Studies will have an immediate value, both in planning new developments and in the revision of zoning ordinances found defective in operation, often largely because of over-zoning of land for commercial use or the unfavorable effects on land values of zoning unbalanced in other respects. When Milwaukee discovered that, under its zoning ordinance, there was three times as much street frontage zoned for business as was actually in use, with about ten per cent of existing stores vacant, the city realized that its citizens were suffering economic losses

vi

SERIES PREFACE

resulting from false hopes raised by zoning done without some of the facts which this present research supplies. The administration of zoning in many parts of the country has revealed the necessity for so many delicate adjustments and, above all, the need for revised and more precisely drawn enabling legislation, that the Harvard School of City Planning has had undertaken two further researches in the field of zoning, which will be published in the coming year: Transition Zoning, by Arthur C. Comey, and a study by Frank B. Williams, Edward M. Bassett, and Robert Whitten directed toward the production of up-to-date forms for community planning legislation for use in the United States, carrying on from the Model Acts issued by the United States Department of Commerce. One of the greatest assets of any research is the experience encountered in the application of its findings. The data assembled by Mr. Bartholomew over a period of years have been in constant use in his professional practice of city planning. By sharing this experience with other practitioners and with the country at large, we feel that he has given Harvard an opportunity to be of real service in promoting more reasonable and therefore more successful planning and zoning. THEODORA KIMBALL

HUBBARD

Editor of Research H E N R Y VINCENT

Chairman HARVARD

UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OP C I T Y

June 1, 1932

PLANNING

HUBBARD

CONTENTS URBAN LAND USES INTRODUCTION

3-8

CHAPTER I T H E ZONING SURVEY

9-15

Maps, 10 — Types of cities, 11 — Urban land classifications, 11. CHAPTER I I DEVELOPED AREA IN CITIES

17-20

Self-contained cities, 17 — Satellite cities, 20. CHAPTER I I I SINGLE-FAMILY D W E L L I N G S

21-32

Self-contained cities, 21 — Satellite cities, 29. CHAPTER IV TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS

33-42

Self-contained cities, 33 — Satellite cities, 42. CHAPTER V MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS

43-55

Self-contained cities, 43 — Satellite cities, 53. CHAPTER VI COMPARISON OF D W E L L I N G A R E A S

57-63

CHAPTER VII HOUSING TRENDS I N CITIES OF L E S S T H A N 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 POPULATION

.

.

Single-family housing trend, 66 — Two-family housing trend, 67 — Multi-family housing trend, 67.

65-69

CONTENTS

VIU

71-84

85-88

89-92

CHAPTER

XI 93-96

RAILROAD P R O P E R T Y

Self-contained cities, 93 — Satellite cities, 96. CHAPTER

XII

COMBINED L I G H T AND H E A V Y INDUSTRIAL AND RAILROAD P R O P E R T Y

.

.

97-102

Self-contained cities, 99 — Satellite cities, 102. CHAPTER

XIII

STREETS

103-109

Self-contained cities, 103 — Satellite cities, 108. CHAPTER

XIV

PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS

110-115

Self-contained cities, 111 — Satellite cities, 115. CHAPTER X V P U B L I C AND S E M I - P U B L I C P R O P E R T Y

116-120

Self-contained cities, 116 — Satellite cities, 120. CHAPTER

XVI

VACANT A R E A S

Self-contained cities, 121 — Satellite cities, 124.

121-125

CONTENTS CHAPTER

ix

XVII

C O N C L U S I O N S AND T H E I R A P P L I C A T I O N

127-154

Ratios of acreages of various uses to population, 127 — Percentages of total city area and of developed area devoted to the various uses, 135 — Application of conclusions, 151. APPENDIX

A

D A T E S OF COMPLETION OP ZONING SURVEYS U S E D IN T H I S R E S E A R C H

APPENDIX

.

157

.

158-167

Β

U R B A N L A N D U S E S AS C L A S S I F I E D BY T H E Z O N I N G F I E L D S U R V E Y S

.

Main classes of urban land uses, 158 — Alphabetic index of urban land uses as classified in the zoning surveys, 159. I N D E X

169-174

LIST OF PLATES University City, Missouri — Airview Showing Effects of Zoning

Frontispiece FAQB

PLATE NT7UBKR

I. Geographic Location of Cities

.

.

II. Urban Land Uses, Jefferson City, Missouri

.

.

.

6

follomng

10

I I I . Diagram Showing Changing Use of Land during Fifty-year Period, Louisville, Kentucky . . . . . . facing

12

IV. Functional Uses of Urban Land V. Single-family Dwelling Areas

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

VI. Two-family Dwelling Areas VII. Multiple Dwelling Areas V I I I . Commercial Areas I X . Industrial and Railroad Areas

15

. folloioing

22

. following

38 50 80

.

.

.

.

. following

100

. following

122

X I . Relation between City Population and Areas Devoted to Various Uses

132

X I I . Urban Land Uses in Various Self-contained Cities: Percentage of facing Total City Area Occupied

140

X I I I . Urban Land Uses in Various Self-contained Cities: Percentage of facing Total Developed Area Occupied

142

X I V . Average Percentage of Land Used for Various Purposes — Selfcontained Cities

146

X . Vacant Areas

LIST OF TABLES TABLE NUMBER

PAGK

1. Ratios of Total Developed Area to Population and to Total City Area — Self-contained Cities

16

2. Ratios of Total Developed Area to Population and to Total City Area — Satellite Cities

19

3. Ratios of Single-fafnily Buildings and Area to Population — Self-contained Cities

24

4. Ratios of Single-family Area to Total City Area and to Developed Acreages — Self-contained Cities

25

5. Single-family Housing Statistics — Self-contained Cities .

28

.

.

.

6. Ratios of Single-family Buildings and Area to Population — Satellite Cities 7. Ratios of Single-family Area to Total City Area and to Developed Acreages — Satellite Cities

30 31

8. Ratios of Two-family Buildings and Area to Population — Self-contained Cities

34

9. Ratios of Two-family Area to Total City Area and to Developed Acreages — Self-contained Cities 10. Two-family Housing Statistics — Self-contained Cities . . . .

36 38

11. Ratios of Two-family Buildings and Area to Population — Satellite Cities

40

12. Ratios of Two-family Area to Total City Area and to Developed Acreages — Satellite Cities 13. Multi-family Housing Statistics — Self-contained Cities . . . .

41 44

14. Ratios of Multi-family Area to Total City Area and to Developed Acreages — Self-contained Cities

46

15. Housing Statistics for Selected Apartment Buildings — Self-contained Cities

48—49

16. Multi-family Housing Statistics — Satellite Cities 17. Ratios of Multi-family Area to Total City Area and to Developed Acreages — Satellite Cities

52 54

18A. Comparison of Dwelling Area Statistics by Types — Self-contained Cities

56

18B. Comparison of Dwelling Area Statistics by Types — Satellite Cities . 19. Comparative Statistics of Population Housed, by Types of Dwellings — Self-contained and Satellite Cities

58 60

20. Comparison of Population Densities in All Dwelling Areas — Self-contained and Satellite Cities . . . . . . . . .

61-62

xiv

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE N U M B E R

PAGE

21. Statistics of New Family Accommodations Provided by Various Types of Housing 1921-1929 in 232 Identical Cities of Less T h a n 300,000 Population

64

22. Ratios of Commercial Buildings a n d Area to Population — Self-contained Cities

70

23. Ratios of Commercial Area to Total City Area and to Developed Acreages — Self-contained Cities

72

24. Statistics of Commercial Uses of Property in Relation to Population and Area — Self-contained Cities

76

25. Distribution of Commercial Frontage — Self-contained Cities .

78

.

.

26. Distribution of Commercial Frontages in Concentric One-half-mile Zones — Self-contained Cities following

78

27. Ratios of Commercial Buildings and Area to Population — Satellite Cities

82

28. Ratios of Commercial Area to Total City Area and to Developed Acreages — Satellite Cities

83

29. Ratio of Light Industrial Area to Population — Self-contained Cities

.

85

30. Ratios of Light Industrial Area to Total City Area and to Developed Acreages — Self-contained Cities

86

31. Ratio of Heavy Industrial Area to Population — Self-contained Cities

.

89

32. Ratios of Heavy Industrial Area to Total City Area and to Developed Acreages — Self-contained Cities

90

33. Ratio of Railroad Area to Population — Self-contained Cities .

93

.

.

34. Ratios of Railroad Area to Total City Area and to Developed Acreages — Self-contained Cities

94

35. Ratio of Combined Light and Heavy Industrial and Railroad Property to Population — Self-contained Cities

97

36. Ratios of Combined Light and Heavy Industrial and Railroad Property to Total City Area and to Developed Acreages — Self-contained Cities .

98

37. Ratio of Combined Light and Heavy Industrial and Railroad Property to Population — Satellite Cities

100

38. Ratios of Combined Light and Heavy Industrial and Railroad Property to Total City Area and to Developed Acreages — Satellite Cities . .

101

39. Ratios of Street Area and Mileage to Population — Self-contained Cities

104

40. Ratios of Street Area to Total City Area and to Developed Acreages — Self-contained Cities

105

41. Ratio of Street Area to Population — Satellite Cities

108

.

.

.

.

42. Ratios of Street Area to Total City Area and to Developed Acreages — Satellite Cities

109

43. Ratio of Park and Playground Area to Population — Self-contained Cities

110

44. Ratios of Park and Playground Area to Total City Area and to Developed Acreages—• Self-contained Cities

112

xv

LIST OF TABLES TABLE N U M B E R

PAGE

45. Ratio of Park and Playground Area to Population — Satellite Cities

.

113

46. Ratios of Park and Playground Area to Total City Area and to Developed Acreages — Satellite Cities

114

47. Ratio of Public and Semi-public Area to Population — Self-contained Cities

116

48. Ratios of Public and Semi-public Area to Total City Area and to Developed Acreages— Self-contained Cities . . . . . . .

117

49. Ratio of Public and Semi-public Area to Population — Satellite Cities

.

118

50. Ratios of Public and Semi-public Area to Total City Area and to Developed Acreages— Satellite Cities . . . . . . . .

119

51. Ratio of Vacant Area to Population — Self-contained Cities

.

.

.

121

.

.

122

.

125

55. Summation : Ratios of All Land Use Areas to Population — Self-contained Cities

126,128

52. Ratio of Vacant Area to Total City Area — Self-contained Cities 53. Ratio of Vacant Area to Population — Satellite Cities

.

54. Ratio of Vacant Area to Total City Area — Satellite Cities

56. Summation: Cities

.

. .

. .

124

Ratios of All Land Use Areas to Population — Satellite 134

57. Summation: Per Cent of Total City Area Occupied by Various Uses — Self-contained Cities

136-137

58. Summation: Per cent of Developed Area Occupied by Various Uses — Self-contained Cities

138-139

59. Summation: Per Cent of Total City Area Occupied by Various Uses — Satellite Cities

148

60. Summation: Per Cent of Developed Area Occupied by Various Uses — Satellite Cities

149

61. Comparison of Average Percentages of Various Uses in Satellite and Selfcontained Cities

150

AUTHOR'S NOTE The term mean average used in most of the Tables represents an average of thefiguresshown in the column to which it refers and is obtained by dividing the sum of the items by the total number of such items. Since the figures in practically all cases represent a condition in cities of different population size, it is apparent that if an absolutely true ratio is sought it would be necessary to give proportionate consideration to the total population of each city. The true ratio would be obtained in each case by multiplying each item by the total population of the city which it represents and then dividing the sum of such multiplications by the sum of the populations. The true ratio would thus accurately represent the conditions under which all of the people in all of the cities live. In the majority of instances, however, there would be very little difference between the mean average and the true ratio. Since the cities vary considerably in size, it is believed that the mean average is a more useful figure for general purposes of comparison. One interested in obtaining a true ratio for any particular item for all cities or for any group of cities can do so by use of information contained in the present Tables. The author hat made every effort to insure accuracy in the Tables, and assumes responsibility for figures and calculations.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The statistical material contained in this research has been prepared over a period of years with the advice and assistance of Mr. Earl 0 . Mills, my most esteemed associate. For assistance in the preparation of the text and tables, especial acknowledgment is made of the services of Mr. John G. Marr, who has also conducted field surveys in many of the cities for which information is herewith reproduced. Acknowledgment is also made of assistance rendered by Mr. Harry W . Alexander and Mr. Russell H. Riley in the preparation and checking of statistical data; to Mr. Clarence W . Baughman for assistance in the graphical presentation of data; and to Mr. McVeigh Goodson, Mr. Howard K . Menhinick, and particularly to Mrs. Theodora Kimball Hubbard and Professor Henry V. Hubbard, for helpful criticism and suggestions in correcting and editing the text. Building officials arid numerous other city officers have given much helpful assistance and cooperation in the preparation of data in the several cities for which information is shown. Η. B. February 13, 1932

xvi

URBAN LAND USES By HABLAND

BARTHOLOMEW

A S S I S T E D B Y JOHN G .

MARR

INTRODUCTION r p O O often is the American city considered as a vast unlimited speculation in real estate. If no harmful results accompanied or followed such speculation, the practice might be accepted with equanimity. Unfortunately, the results are so bad as to become a problem of major economic significance. Well constructed buildings become vacant while still in excellent condition merely because the neighborhood has deteriorated or become "blighted." More often, properties never do build up with permanent structures of good value because of too rapidly changing and shifting conditions. With relatively few exceptions, and these mostly commercial in character, property throughout a city's area generally reaches its highest value when it has been improved with a suitable, permanent structure. Thereafter land and building values may fluctuate, but more often will tend to decrease in varying degree, depending upon such factors as location, measure of community protection by deed restrictions or neighborhood organization, rapidity of growth of the city, and the like. There is all too little stability and permanence of land use and of land and building values in American cities. Blighted districts are not accidents but the inevitable concomitants of the present method of growth of American cities, both large and small. They are symptomatic of a deep-seated malady whose origin can be found in excessive realestate speculation. This speculation is based in turn upon erroneous or exaggerated ideas of the character and extent of the probable growth of the city. This over-estimate of growth and consequent over-estimate of the character and extent of increase in property values is blindly accepted by large numbers of the American people. Zoning has come about partly through the desire of certain better residential districts to obtain a protection which is difficult, if not impossible, to secure by private initiative, and partly through municipal authorities who seek to curtail the enormous losses brought about by uncontrolled growth. Zoning as now practiced, however, has scarcely succeeded in attaining either of these objectives. Owing to inaccurate 3

4

URBAN LAND USES

and, more particularly, insufficient information, our zoning ordinances have been quite out of scale with actual needs. The same forces of speculation that have warped city growth in the past continue to do so through the distortion of zoning ordinances. It is obviously impossible to forecast completely and accurately all probable growth. If the matter becomes merely one of individual opinion, there may be a gross over-estimate or an equally gross underestimate, depending largely upon the knowledge, foresight, and point of view of the individual making the calculation. Too much zoning has been done upon the basis of individual opinion. This was probably necessary and inevitable in the early stages of such work. Now, however, if zoning is to attain its presumed objectives of best promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of each community, its practice should be based solidly upon facts which bear some relation to actual needs. This research has as its purpose the determination of the requirements of the American city as to land areas used for various purposes, ratios of these areas to a given population unit, and analogous statistical information that will be an aid to more scientific zoning practice. This research should have practical value in providing a method for estimating the total area required for each particular urban use for any given future population of between 5,000 and 300,000 persons. The apportionment of the majority of the land uses need no longer be based on conjectures, but can be determined accurately within certain limits. The limits of variation may be compared to the safety factor in structural design. The information contained herein is a prerequisite to reasonable zoning. Hastily conceived and arbitrarily prepared zoning plans can never accomplish results which are socially desirable and economically sound: the best zoning practice demands a thorough understanding of the requirements of each particular city, supplemented by a complete knowledge of the requirements which are common and necessary to all cities. Even where a zoning ordinance has already been prepared without the benefit of such information, statistics should still be collected so that changes and revisions of the zoning plan and ordinance may be made in accordance with actual needs. Zoning commissions will then be able to know their task and to perform it more satisfactorily. While the American courts have firmly established the validity of zoning as a lawful exercise of the police power, they have properly reserved the right to decide the reasonableness of any particular ordinance or

INTRODUCTION

5

regulation. In the Euclid Village, Ohio, decision (Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Company), the United States Supreme Court stated this point of view (note the clause here italicized) : . . . it is enough for us to determine, as we do, that the ordinance in its general scope and dominant features, so far as its provisions are here involved, is a valid exercise of authority leaving other provisions to be dealt with as cases arise directly involving them. What effective method of providing zoning with a logical and scientific basis can be evolved other than a determination of the actual amounts of land required for all of the various necessary purposes and functions of a well organized municipality? Further judicial cooperation in the way of increased expansion of the present zoning powers can be expected only when the actual urban requirements are made plain to the courts and to the general public. The statistical and graphical information in the ensuing chapters has been calculated from uniform field surveys conducted by the author's office in twenty-two more or less typical American cities of less than 300,000 population during the past several years. Sixteen of the twentytwo are self-contained cities, the remaining six being "satellite" in character. The sixteen self-contained cities vary in size from Troy, O., with a population of 8,697, to Louisville, Ky., with a population of 307,808. Of the six satellite cities, with a population range from 1,525 to 23,430 persons, five are St. Louis suburbs and one a suburb of Chicago. In the tables, the differential between the 1920 and 1930 population was allotted in direct proportion to the number of years and months intervening between 1920 and date of the survey (see Appendix A). When segregated in accordance with population-group classifications, it is found that there are ten cities of less than 50,000, five between 50,000 and 100,000, six between 100,000 and 250,000, and only one greater than 250,000. The population of Louisville (307,808) is the greatest of any city for which comparable data are available. In dividing the subsequent data into the various population classifications, the group of largest cities has been designated as from 250,000 to 300,000 although Louisville, which happens to be the only city in this group, has a population slightly greater than 300,000. It will be further noted that all of the self-contained cities have more than 5,000 persons and consequently the population groups range from 5,000 to 300,000. Geographically, all sections of the country are represented, although

6

INTRODUCTION

7

the majority of the cities are in the Middle West and only one city, Binghamton, Ν. Y., is in the East. Although the number of cities is limited for which complete data are available, it is believed that the cities included present an average of what might be expected within all municipalities of between 5,000 and 300,000 population. The accompanying chart, Plate I, shows the geographical location of the cities covered by this research. When a greater volume of information shall become available, it might be advisable to allocate the complete data for groups of cities in accordance with the separate geographical divisions of the United States. Such a refinement can be and should be made for the various population-group classifications in each separate geographical district. Investigation of the 1930 population statistics shows that there are only twenty-three cities in the United States larger than Louisville, Ky., which is the largest municipality included in this research. Complete data for the larger self-contained cities, including their suburban development, would be difficult and expensive to obtain, and it is extremely doubtful whether there would be any great variation from the results obtained here. The total urban population of the United States for 1930 is 68,954,823 persons. Of this total, 38,721,310 are in cities of greater than 5,000 and less than 300,000 population. In the further subdivision of the total population of the cities within these limits it is found that, of the total urban population of the United States, there is the following distribution : NUMBER o r

PERSONS

3,268,847 7,540,966 6,491,448 21,420,049

POPULATION

CLASSIFICATION

250,000-300,000 100,000-250,000 50,000-100,000 5,000- 50,000

The data of this research are believed to be representative of the average conditions under which at least 56 per cent of the total urban population of the United States works and lives. Of the total of 1,833 cities of greater than 5,000 population in the United States, 1,808 have a population between 5,000 and 300,000. The information given in this research then will probably apply to 99 per cent of the total number of incorporated cities in the United States.

δ

URBAN LAND USES

This research neither attempts to show nor to imply that each city should be made an exact counterpart of every other. It deals only with quantities of land absorbed for various purposes. The functional design of the various component parts will not be discussed. The general location of specific uses as found in certain of the cities included in this study, however, is subsequently described. In presenting this research the author realizes fully that it is not completely exhaustive, since the data are limited in scope. Nevertheless, a beginning is attempted; and it is sincerely hoped that this investigation will provoke further study.

CHAPTER I T H E ZONING SURVEY τ I ^HE planning of cities is never finished. Standards and habits change, and with them the basis of planning. The flux has been faster in recent years than ever before. To a certain degree this rapidity of change has led to exaggerated ideas of urban growth. Prior to the advent of the automobile, intra-utban movement was, in the main, by street car and by walking. The radius to which a city might normally expect to expand was about five miles. The automobile increased this radius at least three times. Cities cannot expect to expand indefinitely, however, as the ultimate limits of the urbanized area will, undoubtedly, be controlled by at least two other factors. A definite limit is imposed by the financial ability of the municipality to provide improvements. With definite population limits, a city can expect to expand only over an area which can be improved and maintained by a reasonable tax levy. State statutes and city charters do fix financial limitations in almost every city, so that the radius of urbanization undoubtedly is limited by this factor, although to what extent, it is at present difficult to say. The second controlling influence is the time factor. The maximum amount of time devoted to traveling between residence and place of occupation is now somewhere between forty-five minutes and one hour. Development beyond such a time radius is limited, since people seldom evince any desire to spend more time or money for transportation. Transportation facilities — automobile, street railway, or rapid transit — can, of course, be improved and the average speed increased, thus creating a greater effective radius ; but there is likewise a definite limit to which this improvement of service can be carried. I t is logical to assume that growth in the larger cities will continue until it has reached the limits imposed by these two factors. The amount of area over which the smaller communities can logically expect to expand in the future is controlled entirely by their ability to finance and maintain urban improvements. The time factor in this latter case is of negligible 9

10

URBAN LAND USES

importance since the expansion is first limited by the inability of small populations to support any large extension of urban improvements. Whether or not there will be any relationship between the various urban land uses within the areas subject to future urbanization can best be answered by determining the relationship between areas now used for various purposes. If there is a fairly constant ratio between these quantities in present developments, it would seem logical to assume that such a relationship would hold true for the cities of the future. Information on this point should be supplemented, of course, by frequent studies of ratios of absorption of land for different purposes to discover the effect of changing habits of building occupancy. In collecting the information concerning areas now devoted to the various urban land uses, it was necessary in the first instance to determine a uniform method of survey to insure results that would be comparable, and then to define all terms that might be ambiguous or subject to misinterpretation. MAPS

It is the customary procedure for city planners to prepare maps showing the existing uses of all property within the municipal area, but, unfortunately, there are comparatively few cities for which detailed statistics regarding uses are available. Some standard method of analysis is needed so that the efforts of individual cities and city planners can be coordinated. The survey of existing conditions should depict the exact use of every single parcel of property within the municipality. The Land Use Map of nearly all cities is prepared in color at an easily readable scale, the various land uses being distinguished by separate colors. This map is very effective in presenting the facts to zoning commissions and the general public. As it would be impracticable to present such a color reproduction for all the cities in this research, a series of maps in black and white showing the complete land uses of a typical city has been substituted (see Plate II). The data for the twenty-two cities which are here presented are the result of actual field surveys, supplemented by and checked against assessors' records and insurance atlases. Field notes are collected on relatively large-scale maps (about 200 feet to the inch) showing lot lines and dimensions. The subsequent computations are made from these sheets by calculating the actual areas in use for various purposes.

MULTIPLE DWELLING AREAS

URBAN L A N D USES J E F F E R S O N C I T Y MISSOURI PLATE NUMBER TO A C C O M P A N Y

Π

URBAN LAND USES"

SINGLE-FAMILY AREAS

THE

ZONING

SURVEY

11

Growth in American cities has taken place by a gradual scrapping and replacing of structures, frequently in the area immediately adjacent to the central business district. Such a change is exemplified by the diagram shown on Plate I I I . It would be of great interest if careful records of city growth could be collected and figures made available covering the changing amounts of land used for various purposes in particular sections of cities over five-year or ten-year periods. TYPES

OP

CITIES

For the purposes of this research, cities are divided into two distinct types: self-contained and satellite. The self-contained municipalities are those which are totally self-sufficient, at least as to all of the facilities and services necessary for complete urban existence. Satellite cities are those which are contiguous to larger municipalities and which are dependent upon the parent city not only for their initial development but also for their continued existence. URBAN LAND

CLASSIFICATIONS

Urban land within any municipality, whether self-contained or satellite, naturally divides itself into two major classifications: (1) developed, and (2) vacant or unused property. The term "developed area," as used in this text, includes all of the area that is used for any urban purpose, whether public or private, such as streets, railroads, parks, dwellings of various kinds, and all commercial and industrial uses. "Vacant property" is that portion of the municipality which at the date of the survey was unused for any urban purpose. It should be noted that portions of the area indicated as vacant property were often being used for farming and truck gardening. Such uses are rural in character as distinguished from urbafn. In this research only those portions of the farming tra!cts actually built upon have been considered as in urban use. The developed area in turn may logically be subdivided into two separate classifications: (1) the area privately developed, and (2) the area used for public and semi-public purposes. PRIVATELY DEVELOPED

AREAS

The areas privately developed comprise all land which has been developed by private capital for strictly private use, and constitute a

12

URBAN LAND USES

large portion of the average city. These areas may be subdivided as follows: 1. Single-family Dwellings 2. Two-family Dwellings 3. Multi-family Dwellings 4. Commercial Areas 5. Light Industry 6. Heavy Industry The titles of these classifications are almost self-explanatory. The single-family dwelling is that which is used by one family alone. This general classification, because of the method of procedure in the field surveys, cannot be expanded to differentiate those residences which house incidentally one or two roomers. All rooming houses which are operated primarily as such, and which are sufficiently well advertised by signs and other methods so that their presence can be noted,.have been placed in the multi-family dwelling classification. Two-family and multi-family dwellings have been investigated separately. By multi-family dwellings in this research are meant such residence structures as apartment houses, flats, lodging and rooming establishments, tenements, and all other structures housing three or more families. All apartment buildings were made the subject of special study relative to the lot area per family, the percentage of lot occupied by building, and other data which are fully discussed in a later chapter. Commercial uses here include all structures and lands that are used for retail purposes; this classification does not include wholesale establishments. Where an area is developed with a single structure in which there is a combination of uses, as commerce and residence, or commerce and industry, it is designated as combined uses on the Land Use Map, but the computations assign all of the area used for the combined purposes either to the predominating use or, if the division is about equal, to the less restricted use. In a later chapter the relative location of the commercial frontage has been considered with respect to its division between the central business district and the outlying sections of the city. The term "central business district" as used in this investigation is the area popularly referred to as the "downtown business district." It is a somewhat vague area with no definite boundaries. In current city planning practice, it is generally understood to be that area containing high property values upon which

ι mm ü : h mwmm J

H r —

EH

; a

\\

n f Ο jo υ -

ο * O

Ä ä g

iSh ι 5 II

_l I . » . . I ^

•

u J [

i

i I

00 10

σ

"

"

3 S ΐ s s s s i 11 j ? s 11111 11

ί

IIIQQD

THE ZONING SURVEY

13

the major portion of the city traffic is concentrated, and in this connection is sometimes referred to as the "central traffic district." It is usually clearly defined in the city plan, made large enough for considerable expansion, and bounded by proposed distributor streets. Industry is divided into two distinct categories: light and heavy. All industries which could be objectionable to adjacent residences due to the emission of smoke, dust, noise, or odor have been classified as heavy industry; all others are considered as light industry. The term "heavy industry" is used in place of "nuisance industry" because of obvious objections to the latter term. This is the customary classification used in most zoning ordinances. A detailed list showing the allocation of particular industries to the light and heavy classifications is included in Appendix B.

PUBLIC A N D SEMI-PUBLIC A R E A S

While the lands occupied by streets, railroads, parks and playgrounds, institutions, cemeteries, and several other like uses all come within the classification "public and semi-public property," for the purposes of this research streets, railroads, parks and playgrounds are separately considered; and, as here used, "public and semi-public property" includes such things as institutions, cemeteries, churches, libraries, private clubs, city property, fire stations, and water works. These uses, developed by either public or private capital, are not necessarily available to the entire population, but they are so used by a portion of the public that even those privately owned assume a quasi-public character. Plate IV, Functional Uses of Urban Land, was evolved to show graphically the subdivision of the total municipal area according to use. Appendix B, Urban Land Uses as Classified by the Zoning Field Survey, contains a detailed list of all of the various urban land uses encountered during the field surveys. This material has been appended for the purpose of supplementing the brief descriptive matter contained above. While the data contained in this appendix have been made as complete as possible, it is probable that there may be several additional urban land uses that are not included therein, since cities in certain sections of the country have uses which are not commonly encountered in other sections. It is also possible that, because of conditions found in individual cases, exceptions might be taken to the classifications of

14

URBAN LAND USES

certain uses as designated in this appendix, but the present classifications are based upon what are believed to be prevailing practices. It was the original intention to segregate all of the various land-use requirements with respect to total population into separate populationgroup classifications: 5,000 to 50,000; 50,000 to 100,000; 100,000 to 250,000 ; and 250,000 to 300,000. After the completion of the tentative calculations, however, it was found impossible to determine a sufficiently definite relationship between certain land uses and the size of the city. When there is an apparently constant relationship, it has been noted and commented upon in the text. It is believed that this refinement should be made the subject of a later investigation when data are available from a larger number of cities.

THE ZONING SURVEY

FUNCTIONAL USES OF U R B A N LAND PLATE· NUMBE-R. Π TO ACCOMPANY

"URBAN LAND USES'

15

I ί Β g Β S « § Or°«i S

cu5Heom«ii5it-_eHt-i>!o «c5«^oeo(5o>es

Η fe & Η

Ο Η ΗSo ® £.2 ο a J rß a ·· β to >· ·oaoi>oOi>c>>-5l5mi>0)ο ® η οο α to οο α ο 00 l > o f «5 rH «5 « τ « j «5 οο" «Γ «5 ι-ί «5 -ψ"

Ο

ü - g β r7 ο 5J Β

· ψ 0 ® ( 0 ® 0 0 0 0 - ί 0 « ® 0 0 0 · ψ ΐ ί ϊ i » u 5 t - i > o s c o o i > a t » H a i t » o e i ) ' ^ © C 0 0 0 - 3 » 0 0 < 0 0 0 i > CO ^ t— CO CO Γ-Η s< I—I i-H O« Φ»

Η

* SH 2 S ö 8 5 > a jQ ο ρ , CO β. t< r Ρ « &

H O H O B ® ) l > O O n r t a i ( i ( S e ( t - O i O ! D H M 5 ( « ! O > f » 0 0 O « ! t » ^ a O o c o e i s f «) O «5 l > « ) ΓΗ i»' «5 ι—I rH r-l Η W Η

Η »

t-"

|J Η s ε Η Κ β ο «Ε

-

Η Η * Κ 5 CÄ fe ϋ

,3 Ή [0 « ο 3 ε ΕΗ rvT Η ^ Η g ε * S ο Ο « < 1-5 δ " ο fc Μ Ο ·«!

Q S k Η Λ £ > 0 Ο Vi β β ί ο « ϋ Η

o o I—1 o o OS ο td «i oc t-' ö •ψ i-H l—l I-H 0 0

ti Ο Η Ή Η « «

00 co

ei Ö oo oo ί· co_ i- > Ό ι—1 r-t

Ο

Ο

s * μ a Β ·< Q g

x « & ο ϋ < ! J ζ •< £ Η

Η S

0 S ° Ö 0 S ° 5 )

S 3

fa ° K

r" J s
pH ^ ο θ Η η CO r *

W

g

χ

ö

3

ϋ

ο

Ή Η Η •J J

Ρ S

•J « Β E? >

S

Η 10 ^

•< ζ- Ί Ä

η

Η « -Ο

Η 5 _ t -

CS CO

I

£ a

a ΗΪ3 β " s . Ο •< « Η fa Ο I fi « S S mi Ο ξ ϋ α« Η a BS > Q g ä « Η C J ο la κ a &< > Ο ® ° Q

ο „ l! 2 Η ü

pH J ο . J i ^ ( Λ0 « 2^ » Λ 0 Ρ h ο -1 > S a S 'S Μ » a ο g Μ

Ol

,

^ ο ι ^ α β β ) Η ΐ » Η « ( 5 ( ο « ι β ^ ο ι FH i > 1 > ΓΗ ΓΗ -fli tji 00 o ö ? d 05 >o OS ΓΗ O l «o 0 0 t - 0 ( » 0 < 0 t - 0 0 1 > £ - ® £ » l - 0 0 1 > « !

^ « ) 0 0 Η ί . ® · ί β Μ Ο ® Μ Ο 9 < Ο Ι Ι ) ( s i c i u i s i H i i i ' f H ' w d d o i i d d K ) ^

so 80

J

Ε, Η ό Β S

.

ü ν Β Η ΐ HfS^ 6 Ζ

J

8 ( ( Ν « Η Η Η 8 ΐ η Η ΐ 5 Ι β | ( 5 ΐ Η 5 | ® Γ


P fc Γ) !" S • fc O1 o "ffl *-ϊ o® a j -· ü g ^ « « s S oas «

α

w ΡΗ Ο hJ Μ > Η Ρ

ft 5> OS «5

•ψ

«0 »-H 00

σ> α>

00 «5 OS W5

•ψ -ψ Tfi

«5 -ψ

h

J

a S . 4 α i g ^

Η « 5

8.59

1

! > ϊ > 0 « 5 Ι > « 0 0 < 3 0 ΐ 5 < 5 0 « 5 0 · ' ί ; ϊ > < Ν ® ( »-i

rH

rH

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0

O O « M I > O ® 1 0 ® l > l 5 l ® 5 1 < 0 b ; M Η β ) Γ Η ΐ > Η ΐ » ' ? β ! δ » ί - ο ο ι ® ( β ι η ο rH ι—1 «5 © ( C O

OS

OI Ο Γ-Η

1.296

0 0 0 0 0 0

0.143

0 « ) » ® I S » 1 0 e ( S 9 l » « i S ' i » a i Η β Ι Ο < ΐ Η θ α ! ^ 8 ( 0 > ® ® « ) 0 « 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 © * 0 0 © * i - H r - < 0 r H i — 1 01 u ;

W

Η

PEOBIA, III

.

.

. TOTALS

BINGHAMTON, Ν. Y. . .

TROY, 0

SAN ANTONIO, TEX. . .

.

. CEDAR RAPIDS, IA. . .

SPRINGFIELD, MO

SAN JOSE, CAL

. SACBAMENTO, CAL. . .

CAPE GIRARDEAU, MO. .

34

JEFFERSON CITY, MO. .

.

Η

LOUISVILLE, KT

.

FOBT WOKTH, TEX. . .

i e 9 l « b a c O O N ^ a o 00 i·* « 5 « 5 CO « J t - " Κ ) t - " Η 00 Ν ^ O O H « t»

.

. . .

SAN ANGELO, TEX. . .

rH

.

r—1 f-H

« N e H H » i o o ^ e i c CO «Ο CM Ο « ) t-" « ! Η H O H l i f l

TULSA, OKLA

H e i H O e o t o r t n w O* « 5 t > t-^ CO Ο « ί β ΐ Ο« « i O ^ e t O H O

1,583,187

i > rH "ίι i — l » - H W i « 5 a * O t - r - ( C O © » i > r - l r H ^ « ι ® « ο ι ι ο « ι · ί ί · « ι β ) ® ο ι » ο ι ^ i - l « «S Η W Ο Η t 81 » « ffl rt W ι-Η Η (Ν « 1 ι-ί CO

19,318

Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Γ Η Γ Η Ο Ο Ο Ι - Η Γ Η Ο Ι - Η Ο © * · ^

MEAN AVEBAGES .

ΐ

h " « ) ί · " Ό* (ϋ" CO »

VANCOUVEB, B. C.

Η Ü

T

«J

KNOXVILLE, TENN. . .

SQ. FT. OP LOT ΑΒΕΛ PER TWO-FAMILY BLDO. TWO-FAMILY AREA : BLDGS. PER ACRE TWO-FAMILY AREA : ACRES PER 100 PERSONS TWO-FAMILY AREA IN ACRES TWO-FAMILY BLDGS. PER 100 PERSONS NUMBER OF TWO-FAMILY BLDGS. POPULATION AT DATE OF SURVEY |H

e o o M t - ^ a e o e i i - o K s o m e t o

35

TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS

It will be seen in Table No. 8 that the mean average lot area per twofamily building is 5,519 square feet. This is materially lower than the mean average of 6,679 square feet found in the single-family dwelling areas. The mean averages for the single-family and the two-family dwelling areas for the several population classifications are as follows: SQ. F T . N U M B E R OF

POPULATION

OF LOT AREA

CITIES

CLASSIFICATION

PER SINGLE-FAMILY

4 5 6 1

5,000- 50,000 50,000-100,000 100,000-250,000 250,000-300,000

SQ. OF LOT PER

FT. AREA

TWO-FAMILY

BLDG.

BLDG.

7,912 6,801 5,931 5,622

6,921 4,873 5,357 4,112

In each of the four population groups the lot area per building is smaller for two-family buildings than for single-family buildings. The greatest differences are to be noted in the 50,000 to 100,000 class (4,873 as compared with 6,801) and in the 250,000 to 300,000 class (4,112 as compared with 5,622). It would be desirable from, a zoning standpoint to require that the area used for each two-family building be at least equal to that of a single-family building. It would be even more desirable if the average lot area of twofamily buildings could be made considerably greater than that of single-family buildings. In view of the fact that the housing trends from 1921 to 1929 (see Table No. 21) indicate a diminution not only in the number of new twofamily buildings erected during the last nine years but also in the percentage of the total families accommodated therein, it appears that twofamily buildings might properly be permitted in the single-family dwelling district if adequate lot area is required and especially if a reasonable measure of architectural control could insure their being in harmony with the single-family development. The mean average percentage of the total developed area now in use for two-family dwellings is 2.10 in the sixteen self-contained cities (see Table No. 9). This average figure is deceptive, however, since in Knoxville, Tenn., only 0.23 per cent is used for such purposes while in Binghamton, N.Y., 9.62 per cent is so used. The percentage found in Binghamton is almost 42 times as great as in Knoxville. On the other hand, ten cities have ratios between 0.44 and 2.07, and three cities have

4.28 2.10

β!^Η·«ιΐί)ΟβΟΟ)[-ΟΟΟΟΜ^ηβΙ

os

Ο

ο ο ο ο ei Ο ο

Ο

Η

©ί .-< ο

R-
CO CO 00 00 05 »5 S< r-l

i-H

. . . .

Ο Ι—Ι Η -5 οί

Ι-Η

«β i >

MEAN AVERAGES

Η

Ο ο

SHREWSBURY, MO.

I

ο

w w οι m ^ i i Ο S I 9 1 ΓΗ ι—I

.


« CO TF t -" CO CO f- 1-H i>

«d U η& "J

κ ο α Μ 000130^1>β««5ΙΚ9!'ίΗ»005(β( « 5 Ο Β 5 < 0 0 ' > | ι » Ο 1 » η ί » Η 0 0 0 > οο cd CO 05 rH 1> 05 «Ο rH ® rH Q< CO 00 rH ςβ as

00 σ> Ο ο Ο rH οέ rH ο6 }< rH rH «5 rH

00 05 CO ca co rH 0* 00 00 rH C5 00 ο "f rH rH

OS "ί oo OO 00 β ο rH so rH 05 oo rH rH

05 «5 Ο rH

s om ä Q s M -

οοββΐίββοββ^ιΗΐοβι·β siaöaici-^r-Hsioiiöi^cii-Htod-^cö

a ο Λ es α

i>

«

sκ * 3· ο Ε ί2οβ g S&m fc

85

δκ

J «! Ρ pQoa Ρ» w ο

•i^oioN^^woeooencot-' (• t· « W β « Ο « »I b; β ί- rt Ο ^ β» β» -ί Ο 1» Η Λ β Oi Η rt β τ-ii-tr-l Η βί rt ι-Η

f β ο" rH

β >3 CS α

HOHOW»(t-00HH05iO8tlS!>O 01SH»5!«l®^e)COO«!l»fiaO W 5 i — ι t— »O t— r-i CO i> fcrH rH rH Η 05 Η (Ν

"33

β £ α I δ 3· •s

6 « rΐ Μ * ό Μ< Η · Θ £ ä m Η Μ ο Μ Q" a 2 Β fc Η J Η |J aο J15 aΒ ΕW W ί w •< 3J jrso Ι g Ο Μ ε Χ g δ a.5 μ ο fc S 5 O i ! « " Ι ΡΟ Η != c c h U t c t ß t ß ü B Η-1 ΰ 44

S Κ . Η ΜΜ υ

2

ί κ ο Η ΡΗ Β S § ω ^ ΡΗ ~

Ν

MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS

45

ratios for the cities vary from 0.029 acres to 0.142 acres per 100 persons. The higher figure is 390 per cent greater than the lower figure. Fifteen of the sixteen cities have between 0.029 and 0.124 acres per 100 persons while eight have between 0.047 and 0.087 acres. There is an apparent relationship between the population of the city and the area used for multi-family buildings, — the larger the city the greater the number of acres devoted to multi-family housing per 100 persons. Placing the cities in their population groups, it is found that: N D M B E B OF

POPULATION

CITIES

CLASSIFICATION

4 5 6 1

5,000- 50,000 50,000-100,000 100,000-250,000 250,000-300,000

MULTI-FAMILY A R E A :

ACRES

PER 100 PERSONS

0.050 0.099 0.064 0.142

Although the ratio for the 50,000 to 100,000 population group is greater than for the 100,000 to 250,000 group, it is possible that the figures for these two population groups might be reversed when additional data are obtained. The mean average percentage of the total population housed in multifamily dwellings is 7.64, taking such dwellings to include apartment houses, rooming and lodging establishments, flats, tenements, and all other structures providing for three or more families. This is divided between the four population classifications as follows : N U M B E R OF

POPULATION

CITIES

CLASSIFICATION

4 5 6 1

5,000- 50,000 50,000-100,000 100,000-250,000 250,000-300,000

P E R C E N T OF POPULATION MULTI-FAMILT

IN

BLDGS.

4.84 9.31 7.78 9.72

As we might expect from the previous table showing acreage per 100 persons, the percentage of total population housed in multi-family dwellings tends to increase directly as the city increases in population with the exception of the 100,000 to 250,000 group, in which, again, the

b

,

*

eo

® H n H o i « ) i o « ! o a i i i ) O r t r t i - j )

tß Η

O

CO r i

pH Ö

05 θ ί

Ö

Ο» ^

β»

pH ®f

Ö

Tj!

« S s 5 g B 5 f f l Ö

< Ο

§

s °

U

£

5 ü ° S o V j -
95 i > r i 00 os e i so to Ol

m

OS « O pH « O ©< OT 00 pH

pH

3 13 •β s

«5 >« ° ο fc

hi

Η

Εη

O O i i i O W S O O t - p H t - O T t - ^ t - O S ©

j a g

Η

υ hH

w hi μ

w

e< 9 *

8

«i^OJpH'^Hdc0o6w!t»50CDo0!OrH » ο e t Ol ® 9 1 ( S K l β ! ffi Ο 00 ^ ο • ί « η ο of o£ si" -ψ a so ι> oi

«

Η

Ο

ο Η

-«J W Ρη

Ss>

? la O H J ·*! a

a m ο > « J 0 H « ) O O a i » N ' i l Q O O OJ ® 00 CO* t - " e f « >

0 0 M H r i 6 ^ i l H O Q Oi 1> H * 115 »

« ) e e i M « «5

i q f f l l D ® l l l r H i » ) p i d « 5 C I S O ) Ö ^ ' i l i l O m i i i O l « CO CO CO GC OS ο Ό " 00 CO " ) r H U> TP* -a 3


3 M ^ t Ä h ü c c c ß c o ü B h l & H h S ί ΐ ί ~ β » ^ 0 0 ί - ^ Η t^00t^t^C0(O- Ω Ο Η

» Ο ι Q ö < < Η Β jf β g a ε Sm

Η η

Η

Η ••8 ί Ο Η

Ο Εη •«3 W ί* Jι—ι a -sj

s Η •J Ρ §

to Ο Cß Ο ι—ι §

ο tD β» ΓΗ Ο Ο β» rH pH e Ο Ο

OS

00

a

J < fc «a ΛΗΒ

«1 Η Ρί

ο « « οί Ο Ο

3 "Ο -β α s

1> (Ο «5 00 β» Ö «5 οί Ö βί «fl 05 00 Ol βο «Ο *S< -ψ SO rH

rH t- rH 05 i> GO Ν βί «j Ο 00 oo sc f ^ι oo ο 00 CO t- O «5 ®< J3 'S α

ο ο ο ο t> Ol wj β» ώ ^ «5 η οο η ι> a β η co Ι-Η CO Η Η

ο § (Η* Η Οΰ «Η CG S Η S Κ S ° £ &Η Η ~ Β £ •J R ο κ < fc ü & S Ρί h (Β

Η β •< κ Η $

II

MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS

55

between the limits of less than 0.01 and 0.34 acres per 100 persons or between 0.03 per cent and 4.76 per cent of the total developed area. Distance from the central business district of the parent city, rapid transportation facilities, and population demands directly affect the relative amount of area required for this use. When the self-contained and the satellite cities are compared it is found that a mean average of 0.076 acres of multi-family dwelling area per 100 persons is sufficient for the former, while a little less than twice this amount, or 0.120 acres per 100 persons, will meet the needs of the latter. Practically the same ratio holds true when expressed in terms of the percentage of total developed area occupied by multi-family dwellings. The mean averages are : self-contained, 1.09 per cent (see Table No. 14); satellite, 1.71 per cent (see Table No. 17).

PER CENT or DWELLING AREA OCCUPIED BY MULTI-FAMILY BLDGS.

oo (N

PER CENT OF DWELLING AREA OCCUPIED BY TWO-FAMILY BLDGS.

d r t a i H o i c i e i o u ! ^ ® · * ^ « ! » ^

W5 vi

91.9

« 5 < e f f l « a o » « ) I > i i i o b ; T H q o o a c ö i A a A o o a Ä c i Q O o o o i ä ä O i ü

DWELLING AREA IN ACRES

O ^ «S co

« 5 « ! W S ) ( i l O H N a i H o a o t - 00 ^ Ό t - » 5 GO t > co Η

44,754.7

DEVELOPED AREA IN ACRES

o o < i t o H O O W H « « 5 0 «Ο oo' CO R-J Ö 1> SO T - M O O A R T O E F T O O « β a oo" t > ΟΓ « 5 Ι - ί « 5 CO HI « 5 1-Η

i c o a ( o a 5 a « « 1-H O « 5 - J I ' F ' I I O N » β β ο a 00 00 « 5 ι - ί « 5 ΓΗ Ι—I

«5 OS ©
00i0"i'c005c0>-'

ω
Η ce r-i ©*

05 β tI—(

00 OS (N OS C O © «5 «5 OS os co l-H 1> OS «5 (—1

C O t- © oo öi OS «5 I—( e
ι— 05 'Ο Ο ο" l>" C O to ι—1

CD

Ο

I < © οό — C O

Ό 3

Q ε« ο fc

iΡί s

M

Ph pq w « -«J Η

cß Ο δ cß Q w r 1—1

S3

° -s c 18 υ ω Β ·Ξ t 3

rH OS t OS 00 -H 00 S» ©~ αΓ ί~* oo o« s»

«5 «5 © © © OS ι—1 ©

«2 ^

O S υ υ


β

μι β

S


uö TJ!

C O rH C5 co

C O I—( oo 00 © r-l

© C O OS C O «5 r—t

is

Ό

ί* J β* C O feg £

05 o» Η os

ν

Ο

a

;

i

β

ο

(3

» H g 64

ce G

α

Ο

β»

ο

ο ό οο" s i Ο οό t > Ι-Η ο » 1-Η 1-Η Ι-Η Ι-Η Ι-Η

to

«3

0

00

6 0 « 5 I-H Ι-Η I-H rH

00 I-H

αϊ t~

as t-

Η " ' § CO g

SONS

CoMMERC

PER 100 F

Area : Ac

, «> ι Η Β BJ 2 « Η rH o s ο ο ο «5 « 5 « 5 t - SO CO Ι-Η t o ο I-H I-H i-H I-H s * β » Ι-Η Ö

Ο

Ο

ο

ό

Ο

Ο Ι-ί M5 i-H

ο

t-

OS CO c o

οέ s< β*

00 so

so ο s


ο ι - «5 1-Η r H

60 «5 β


ο»

οό « 5 •ψ 1-Η

οό ο to ι-Η r H • ψ rH

οό ο ί>

m

>J Η •< Κ S ^ S fc s ·s « ο El Ü «

θ»

W5 ο ό 0 5 t > to ϊ> rH 60 c o OS 0 0 1-Η r H 1-Η β < « 5 1-Η

βί

σ>

®(

si

si

1-Η Ι-Η s i

ο to

ο s> β»

ο S« σ> ο CO ο

Ι-Η >ί5 t o Ο OS i > S*

5? ο

so t-

(0 pi S Β Κ CM Ο h

r-ϊ s i

si

ei

to so

«5 t"il

s o 1> t 1Γ5 Ι-Η Ι-Η t o S * CO ο ο

rH β


rH οο β» 1-Η •ψ 1-Η

ί-" »n «5 Ό

00 ο οο

>ί5 S ) «5 ι Γ* « 5

ί> ο 60

•ο i > rH ο Ι-Η

t - OS 05 0 to to r-H 00" ϊ > co ί s< "Ο

00 rH 05 00 «5 rH

C

a

S Η Ρ g w £ Η 0iq asiH Q i 0a5 ^ w n ^ i ' C o t o t N H i i j o 0 Ή . "ί β» Ή co t- oo τί ο •τ οί γη Ο» i> i-H CC Ο CO TfH «ϊ Ο » 00 ΐ 00 β" 00 t-" s i if !> 00 S> rt" o Η Η Ol i-H i-l

.a I " Η Η Μ

Äi χ - Η * Η

Β < & «Γ

Μ 9"! ηJ .»Η. Η < w » Β Β f ä O g ä Ι ^ ϋ I g S κ -ί > < ^ Η Η S ^ £ -Ί 05 » κ Η ET

Mo6aos«OHiooooioo!ooe!'fa

RIOINWHSIEIIISIISIEIISIMHAIHEI

rH00oiostdc0c0o*Ö^rHCÖi>cÖ«5rH r H— ι I r Hr H ^©(i—lr-l^r-tr-t rHfH^«




BINGHAMTON, Ν. Y. .

TROY, 0

SAN ANTONIO, TEX.

JEFFERSON CITY, MO. .

.

οί

ΓΗ

PEORIA, III

.

.

. TULSA, OKLA. .

CEDAR RAPIDS, IA.

.

.

.

SPRINGFIELD, MO. .

SACRAMENTO, CAL.

SAN JOSE, CAL. .

. SAN ANGELO, TEX.

CAPE GIBABDEAU, MO.

76

G O

LOUISVILLE, KY. .

— ΙT

1-Η

FOBT WORTH, TEX.

VANCOUVEB, Β. C.. .

rH rH

37,311

T - T F A ^ C O ® · « ? ^

1,583,187

Η

.

Η

.

A

.

CT n

FIFTH ZONE

SIXTH ZONE

Store Store Store Store Store Store Store Frontage: Frontage: Popula- Frontage: Popula- Frontage: PopulaLin. Ft. Frontage Lin. Ft. Lin. Ft. Frontage Lin. Ft. Frontage tion tion tion per 1 0 0 in Lin. Ft. per 1 0 0 per 1 0 0 in Lin. Ft. per 1 0 0 in Lin. Ft. Persons Persons Persons Persons

653

25.6

3,380

15,567

21.7

967

28.1

1,298

11,178

11.6

080

37.3

6,756

12,660

53.4

11,174

1,215 —

10.9

—

2,676

455

—

13,600

19.7

3,920

—

—

1,253

11.6 —

4,760

26.3

763

30.2

3,763

22,421

16.8

3,265

13,899

23.5

1,900

7,451

25.5

780

41.0

16,315

57,990

28.1

11,885

46,090

25.8

7,615

34,790

21.9

660

21.7

1,560

8,590

18.2

—

—

—

25.0

30.7

NINTH ZONE

—

—

20.0

TENTH ZONE

ELEVENTH ZONE

Store Store Store Store Store Frontage: Store Popula- Frontage: Popula- Frontage: PopulaLin. F t . Frontage Lin. Ft. Frontage Lin. F t . Frontage tion tion tion per 1 0 0 in Lin. Ft. per 1 0 0 in Lin. Ft. per 1 0 0 in Lin. Ft. Persons Persons Persons

2,345

12,620

18.6

1,030

18.6

ι cities for which data are available.

7,380

14.0 14.0

200

—

21.3

2,780

7.2 7.2

COMMERCIAL AREAS

79

The mean average frontage for the 37,311 retail stores investigated is 28.1 linear feet. The average number of linear feet of store frontage per acre of commercial property is 370. The maximum and minimum ratios are 623 and 216 linear feet per acre, respectively. The distribution of this store frontage over the entire city is not constant but varies for different sections of the city. A portion of the total business development occurs in the central business district. The remainder is located along portions of the major thoroughfares, at strategic street intersections which are easily accessible. Table No. 25 shows the distribution of commercial frontage between the central business district and the outlying neighborhood store areas. An average of 28.0 linear feet of store frontage per 100 persons or 44 per cent of the total retail business in every city is located in the central business district ; and the remaining 56 per cent, or an average of 35.7 linear feet of store frontage per 100 persons, is found in outlying residential areas. As cities increase in population, the volume of wholesale-business and light-industry uses increases, and the frontage used for purely commercial purposes tends to decrease in the central business district. Commercial enterprises located in outlying districts depend largely upon the population of the immediate tributary neighborhood and the resulting ratio of store frontage to population remains more constant than the ratio found in the central business district. Dividing the store frontage per 100 persons for the central business districts in accordance with the population groups, the following figures are obtained: N U M B E R OP CITIES

POPULATION CLASSIFICATION

S T O R E FRONTAGE CENTRAL BUSINESS L I N . F T . PER 1 0 0

4 5 6 1

5,000- 50,000 50,000-100,000 100,000-250,000 250,000-300,000

IN

DISTRICT: PERSONS

27.9 35.2 24.7 11.9

It can be concluded that the ratio of store frontage per 100 persons which is located in the central business districts of cities in excess cf 50,000 but less than 300,000 decreases directly as the city increases in population.

80

URBAN LAND USES

When the figures for the commercial frontage outside the central business district are divided between these four population groups, practically a constant relationship for all cities between 50,000 and 300,000 is observed: STORE FRONTAGE I N N U M B E R OF

POPULATION

CITIES

CLASSIFICATION

BEYOND BUSINESS

DISTRICT:

L I N . F T . PER 1 0 0

4 5 6 1

5,000- 50,000 50,000-100,000 100,000-250,000 250,000-300,000

AREA

CENTRAL

PERSONS

25.5 39.7 39.3 35.5

It will thus be noted that, while in all of the higher population groups the commercial ratio is fairly constant, in the cities of from 5,000 to 50,000 there is a diminished commercial ratio in the outlying areas. In smaller communities people have a tendency to use the downtown shopping district rather than the neighborhood store. Furthermore, it has been found that the ratio of store frontage to tributary population varies with the distance from the central business district: the greater the distance, the smaller the ratio (see Table No. 26). Computations for population and number of linear feet of commerce by concentric one-half-mile zones show conclusively that there is a rapid decrease in the ratio as the distance from the central business district increases. STORE ZONE NUMBER

NUMBER CITIES

OF

FRONTAGE:

AVERAGE

PER 1 0 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

6 6 6 6 4 4 4 2 1 1 1

NUMBER

OF L I N .

FT.

PERSONS

69.7 44.3 30.7 25.0 20.0 21.3 26.0 13.0 10.8 14.0 7.2

COMMERCIAL AREAS

81

The extremely high ratio for the first zone can be ascribed largely to the development along the thoroughfares extending out from the central business district, which serves not only the population in the tributary area but also a portion of the population living in the outer areas. The computations contain only the population t h a t is actually housed within each concentric one-half-mile zone. While the figures for the several cities indicate a progressive decrease in the ratio of linear feet of commercial frontage to population with increased distance from the central business district, it is to be noted that the ratio is exceptionally high in the first zone (69.7), fairly high in the second zone (44.3), and fluctuates (from 20 to 30.7) between the third and seventh zones. Examination of the figures for individual cities (shown on Table No. 26) discloses considerable fluctuation in the several concentric zones. From these figures the following assumptions are believed to be justifiable : (1) Certain businesses ordinarily found in or near the central business district attempt to move outward to meet their trade, but are not inclined to decentralize completely into outlying areas. This accounts for the larger ratios of commercial frontage in the first and second zones. (2) The comparatively narrow limits of fluctuation in zones three to seven indicate something like an average of 25 linear feet of commercial frontage per 100 persons. Zones three to seven are probably more nearly completely built up than areas beyond. (3) Just as the central business district attracts commercial development, so the more important outlying commercial centers, depending upon their location and degree of importance, produce high ratios of commercial frontage. Although the area necessary for the total commercial development comprises only 1.5 to 3.0 per cent of the total developed area, the average city has seldom apportioned scientifically the area needed to serve future requirements. The present area used for commercial purposes in typical cities is indicated on Plate VIII. The typical cities shown are indicative of the average conditions that are encountered in all selfcontained American cities between 5,000 and 300,000 population. Springfield and Jefferson City, Mo., Louisville, Ky., and San Antonio, Tex., all have close to the average percentage. Of the sixteen cities, Sacramento, Cal., has the highest percentage. The commercial development in the central business district stands out clearly in all of the typical cities, especially in the largest. The area designated as the future central business district has been indicated.

Κ Η B A ΑΟ Α; ΗΟ SM

>ΙJ ®„ 3 «Ο ® A Ο « ä W £ g 8 Ο *(Β Κ S o " »

m W

«

Ο < W «

«

η β

κ

Β

Q

^ ω Ή fi p j a g n o

W Ph ο J w >

CO «5 si

00 OS CO t © Η Ο © 00 Η ι-Η r-c S t Ο ι—1

co •ψ Ο

» « β! 1> 1 » «

ο Μ

ο

ο Ο ! -, ® ο μ Ο £ η ϋ η κ β S o " «

U ·
E ^ J S g

w

O

ο ο Η

^ .

0

s

η g g ε

s

ο

ο

ϋ

ί

a «1 β ο

ο

»fi 00 ο

ό

Ω

£
(οοοοοβο-φσίοαο·'};®!-; rH Tji ΙΟ γη Ο» s i «5 s i S< s i 05 -φ

HO-fOOOOeetOHlrt eicOrHOrH^i-HrHrHsiei

^ GO W5 ο*

ΟΟ 00 ο οο ι—I

«5 οο Si

60 •ψ

®ι ei

C5 Oi ν §· ο.

liSOCOSirHlOtOliiOOCOI« rHoiÖOrJetHuiri^m •JrHO^OHe»^®»!® 51 St Η Η St Η |H CO rH

3 •α .5 •α

S

,β 8 Ο

α β

!μ Ο _ 3Η % Β§* S iλ gw i : j

ο ο »ο Ο) S» s< οο •»f ®ί

a 8 οΗ 3 «ο 3

ο ο W5 ο «5 β* •ψ on

«

οο Ο 00 Ό r-t

O η Ο in «S

>si ο f «β t- «5 «5 Ο

tO 00 too s
M5

Ο Η

CO

- ί Η

υ

I Ο Η

Ο

0

0 1

•1 1

1

0 s
ts

OS 0 «5 0 CO r H

«5

Ρ Ό Β

I S tu s

Η Μ ι-1 η

*


co

i>

I -

OS

Ο

00 00 oo «5

'0 t -

CO 0 0 0 < 0 CO OS 0 t -

00 rH 00

ϊ>

^ o
CO o i CO r H • 0 0 « 5 Η cd ο ι t-'

W

ο

Η

£

( ^ e 0 Η · ί Η Ο 0 0 « ί « ί < » Κ ! 0 0 0 ® Η Η & ί α ^ Μ Μ ^ ^ ϊ ο ϊ ο β ί Η ΐ ί ΐ ο 9 i e o « o i « i ) ) a o t - ® ^ o τ-Γ cd o f βο" ^ Γ α> c o £-"

Ο Ο ^ Ο ι Η ^ ο to' οό » ϊ - Ώ Ο Ο α Η ΟΙ ^ «ο 0 0 CS CO i>* Gl « 3 r-T

Ο η Ο o

Ο Μ Η « ) « α ® Ο β ο ο si η π ο «i Μ Ο ϋ Ο ^ Ί ΐ Ό Ο Μ ί i > '-Ο CR » 5 CC CO CO^ 0 0 CO* « 5 Ui oo" OO" « 5 γη >ti

Ι Η αϊ a β Ο Gi ο V -ο a

W < 8 0 ot ° κ β S ü e « « P«LhQ a
OTt> 1—tTO ι—ι r-i

ö ä« i5< ο S Η

C5 CO «5 l-H Ο OT Ol

Ο · 09 Μ a Ο •J < !"* Ö J ο S S Ö ü . ίΐ Ο ^ a ο ο I i i isw w « « ο H j PS ö ^ H S Ρ- a ο w ä g s 3 S Ο Ρ § Pi £ ^

ο

υ fe Ο tri Ο Η-Ι Η Ρ3

OT 00 ·$< CO ·ί< 00OTOTOS Si Oi IN PH

§*>

Ü

101

URBAN LAND USES

102

PERCENTAGE RELATION NUMBER CITIES

OF

R A I L R O A D P R O P E R T Y TO

CLASSIFICATION

PRIVATELY D E V E L O P E D

4 5 6 1

OF

C O M B I N E D I N D U S T R I A L AND

POPULATION

5,000- 50,000 50,000-100,000 100,000-250,000 250,000-300,000

AREA

27.1 20.2 21.1

21.1

The five cities indicated on Plate I X are representative of the average combined industrial and railroad property development in all of the cities considered in this particular analysis. For all of these latter cities the mean average percentage of the total developed area occupied by the combined uses is 10.8 per cent. The five cities indicated on Plate I X are all close to this mean average figure. Jefferson City, Mo., has 10.7 per cent, Springfield, Mo., 8.5 per cent, Sacramento, Cal., 9.1 per cent, San Antonio, Tex., 7.4 per cent, and Louisville, Ky., 11.2 per cent of the total developed area occupied by combined industrial and railroad property. The major portion of heavy and extra-urban light industry is adjacent to railroad facilities, while the remaining portion of light industry, which has been defined as local, is spread throughout all sections of the city, convenient to neighborhood population. Satellite

Cities

The satellite group shows a slightly greater number of acres of land devoted to combined light and heavy industrial and railroad property per 100 persons than does the group of sixteen self-contained cities. The mean average for the satellites is 1.17, while the average for the selfcontained is 0.92 acres per 100 persons. A reversed relationship between the two types of cities in respect to the percentage of total developed area occupied by combined industrial and railroad property may be observed : the self-contained cities have a mean average of 10.8 per cent (see Table No. 36) of the total developed area occupied by combined industrial and railroad property, while the satellite cities have 10.3 per cent (see Table No. 38)

CHAPTER XIII STREETS

T

O be usable, property must be accessible. Access is provided by streets, roads, avenues, highways, thoroughfares, lanes, and other similar public and private rights of way. For the purpose of this research, all of them have been classified under the general heading "Streets." Self-contained

Cities

In the sixteen self-contained cities the street-area computations included all streets within the municipal limits. Ratios were evolved showing the relation of this total street acreage to population. A summary of the studies of the self-contained municipalities is contained in Tables Nos. 39 and 40. In these cities, a mean average of 20.2 per cent of the total city area is devoted to street use. However, this figure does not portray accurately what might be expected when the entire city is fully developed. The mean ratio of total street space to total developed area, which averages 33.6 per cent, is a more accurate indication of the ultimate absorption of land for street purposes. This difference in percentage is explained by the fact that in most of the cities there is a considerable area still unsubdivided. When the amount of unsubdivided area is not known, any attempt to relate street space to total city area is bound to result in an under-estimate of the total future percentage ; conversely, if the present total street space is compared with the developed area only, without making an allowance for the area of the roads which pass through undeveloped property, the ratio will be an over-estimate. The mean average number of acres devoted to street space is 2.82 acres per 100 persons. Individual cities vary from 1.10 to 6.93 acres. The higher figure is 530 per cent greater than the lower. Nine cities have between 2.06 and 2.87 acres per 100 persons devoted to street space. When divided into population groups the mean average ratios of area to population are as shown at the top of page 106. 103

°« „§„ S °·Μ ο
eio^jitdo0t>oi«itd®i i5t-' «5 1-" ΓΗ οο" i> 0 · ^ ® « ! ι Η Ο ! « ) ΐ Ο Ό · * Ο Ο Η ΐ η ί> ΓΗ ΓΗ ΓΗ ΓΗ CO ΓΗ

Λ
His < Η η Μ ^ < OS Ρ ο fc κ " • S i ? Q J

2 125

ο

%

§

Β

w

SAN ANTONIO

TEXAS

I N D U S T R I A L b> RAILROAD AREAS PLATE

NUMBER

Κ

TO A C C O M P A N Y

URBAN

LAND

UStS

LEGE Ν D Γ " " : . 3 P A R K S C/ O P £ N SPACES CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT

t-x:-y.-3 J E F F E R S O N CITY M I S S O U R I

OlO^SlOlOWOHrliDOIO^aO TOO5^»Ö«SÖ0Öasl>OSt~Os'oSrH0S&i

*Af&>
OS Ο ^^csrt^^öoöodwioöeiiooö1»-« 00 Ο (Μ Q Ο 81 IS «1 «1 Ο) Ο i· ® « ο τρ of co' e? ofTOο» os »5 i>

α Η EU ΖΜ η Ο_« JΗ^ΗΒ υ >


i—i^t-nujooflOfDet^ooiii®«; β Ο «) 91 l> CO «1 «S_ ® Ο t ; 00 «5 00 β» 00 δί « Η CD »H t-H rH rH TO rH -^T

W VS

W Β Μ I-J υ Μ •< kJ Η < Η Ο Η Ο Η

TO TO

Β 5 ·» s

ο s § 6. Χ Ο Η< Η Η « * § 5 -< Ο 6. ϊ; 5 ° 3 S5 & 55 «Ο ·β. < ο•«! •55 Η c js «ι; S

00 00 00 «! Η Η «iiinäo«® ® t- η ο

w

W Ο

W Ω

go

£

W μι Μ

οί

CO ^ 1 9 H e Iη η( ι— qI ι—I SO -H ei — ι ^ « (μ ν a cm «a a 3 c«! u, 53ag tr5CCSOOiOOOOS*Ci«OUi5O0ÖOS

«ogflZe

w

•«f

Ο 00

KHgnssg

w Q

ö ^ u

" a i - w o o o t - o a n i s t - ^ u s a O o 50CO 0 5 0

^^OH^rtdooaäiiiaieiooöo'H β«Η(5(βτ|ΐβ5»^ί>0!Οβ(ιΗΐοΟ οι oo ο ai ο ® κ si w w a ο t - oo ο ^ s? ι-ί to si sf «Γ sf · of «Ο ι-ί "5 CO «5 «5 oo" 00 « ί rH «5 "Ο 3

Q h

ü - g

dag

«0t0ffi9tt0000t ν «j a_ tc ο a t- η oo_ ν ο « ^ " ί t-Γ so βί i-h" eo
® T - « 5 0 S H J I O ( 05RHRH«5T-00®Η ' 1 Γ Μ F H M 6 ® F F L F F L 6 « ) V

A -< 02 &

fc Ο

Ι—< Η §

Ο

§ Ρ

ω

H

Υ

Η

Μ

Χ

S

£

Μ Β

§ . Η

Ο J Η Ο

Ε 5 Ί

ΚΚ 3 2 Μ

U

J O R L

5 η U Ä Η

Η

Η

Ο

3

S

g

Ο «

ΙΕΗ "

a

α

ο Ζ J < η -1 Λ g ω a fccG

α α O ( » ( 0 l » 9 l ® e » H i i i 0 G 0 < S O H O 9 l a O Q n a o n o o i H ^ a a e o o Q «

5 8 3 3 α.

j

Η ω a Β Η GQ

N a ' o o o o ^ i ^ O ' f i S r i n i H o o o o ' o O > m « H « O 0 e > » e e t ( ä < 0 0 ® ^ t - ; h ; ^ Γ Η θ 0 θ ί ) ΐ 0 ^ θ 0 ® » < 0 « > 6 · Η 6 β ! 0

ο α ρ ·< β Ö Η Οπ

Ο >J W

'S S ,β S ο

£ -

2 ι3 q ο 5 S ΜS r t

.

Η

Ol . ώ 03 S < s j u" ί « 2 dH !z n j O fcW^ ηS - S « S

*

ö S £ Β Ε

β S - 3 Η S ®

%£ Β

w fc 5 ^ ·«! < < υ cß cß

139

_

S

5 m

< %

ο Η U

J Ο Η

g o

& ο i t s * ο Η h1 PM ι - s t o H

140

URBAN LAND USES

occupied by the various uses with respect to total city area, while Table No. 58 presents similar data with respect to the total developed area. The statistics of the two tables have been plotted on Plates X I I and X I I I . The same legend has been used on both of these illustrationsjso that comparison can be readily made. Self-contained

Cities

The amounts of land used for the various urban purposes approach definite norms when expressed as percentages of total city area or of developed area. Since the total city area is subject to frequent change as described in Chapter I I , it is not a reliable basis for estimating purposes. However, since this information has been prepared, it is summarized herewith. The mean average percentages of total city area devoted to the various urban land uses are as follows : LAND

USE

Single-family Dwellings Two-family Dwellings Multi-family Dwellings Total Dwelling Areas Commercial Areas Light Industry Heavy Industry Railroad Property Combined Light and Heavy Industrial and Railroad Property Streets Parks and Playgrounds Public and Semi-public Property Vacant Areas Total * Average in fourteen cities.

P E R C E N T OP

P E R C E N T OP

TOTAL CITY AREA

TOTAL CITY AREA

21.8

1.29 0.69 1.44 1.99 *

23.78 1.44

1.68 f

3.16 f

20.19 3.98 4.49 39.8

t Average in eleven cities.

6.32 t 20.19 3.98 4.49 39.8 100. J Average in sixteen cities.

I t will be noted that 39.8 per cent is the mean average percentage of total city area in vacant land in the sixteen self-contained cities, but from examination of Table No. 57 it will be noted further that the percentage varies considerably in different cities. The percentage of total developed area absorbed by various urban land

CONCLUSIONS AND THEIR APPLICATION

141

uses is believed to be a much safer guide for estimating future needed land areas, particularly since on this basis, percentages appear to approach definite norms for certain land uses. The mean average percentages of total developed area absorbed by the various urban land uses are as follows: LAND

P E R C E N T OF

USE

DEVELOPED

Single-family Dwellings Two-family Dwellings Multi-family Dwellings Total Dwelling Areas Commercial Areas Light Industry Heavy Industry Railroad Property Combined Light and Heavy Industrial and Railroad Property Streets Parks and Playgrounds Public and Semi-public Property Total * Average in fourteen cities.

AREA

P E R C E N T OF DEVELOPED

AREA

36.1 2.10 1.09 2.38 3.21 * 2.70 f 5.50 j

33.61 6.33 7.61

t Average in eleven cities.

39.33 2.38

10.79 t 33.61 6.33 7.61 100. J Average in sixteen cities.

The developed area occupies an average of 60.2 per cent of the total city area in the sixteen self-contained cities. The proportion of total developed area increases, as a rule, with the population of the city. Exceptions occur because the amount of area in cities is an arbitrary and, frequently, an unnaturally limited quantity that is unrelated to the population. The second part of this concluding chapter is devoted to a full discussion of the percentages of developed area that are absorbed by the various urban uses. S I N G L E - F A M I L Y

D W E L L I N G S

Of all the urban land uses, single-family dwellings occupy the largest percentage of the total city area and of the total developed area. The mean average percentage of total city area occupied is 21.8, and of total developed area, 36.1 per cent. A general norm for the latter is 35 per cent, although it will ordinarily range between 30 and 40 per cent,

142

URBAN LAND USES

and special circumstances may occasionally require a somewhat higher, or possibly a somewhat lower, figure. The average percentage of the total developed area devoted to single-family dwelling use is fairly constant, particularly for cities between 50,000 and 300,000. The data may be further summarized as follows : 1. The density of the single-family dwelling areas increases directly with the population of the city. There is a corresponding reduction in the lot area per family. 2. There is a mean average of 18.4 single-family buildings per 100 persons of total population, with a mean average of 6.82 buildings per acre of single-family area. 3. There is a mean average of 4.21 persons per dwelling. 4. Single-family dwellings house the majority, an average of 78.6 per cent, of the total population in the cities investigated. This percentage is not constant but varies among the several population classifications. The variation does not indicate a constant increase or decrease as cities increase in population. TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS

Two-family dwellings occupy a relatively small percentage of the total city area and of the total developed area, the respective mean averages being 1.29 and 2.10 per cent. There is such wide variation in the percentages that it cannot be said there is a norm based on either total city area or total developed area. It is evident, however, that the percentage of developed area so used will always be small, usually less than 3.5 per cent, except in those cities where this type of housing is unusually popular. There is no apparent relation between the percentage of developed area used for two-family dwellings and the population of the city. The unusually high percentage found in Binghamton, Ν. Y. (9.62) probably indicates the greater prevalence of two-family dwellings in eastern cities. Several other general relationships may be summarized as follows : 1. The mean average density of population in the two-family area is 68.7 persons per acre. This density shows a tendency to increase from 52.9 to 74.2 persons per acre for the four population-group classifications, except that the five cities in the 50,000 to 100,000 population group have an average of 80.4 persons per acre. 2. There is a mean average of 1.296 two-family buildings per 100 persons of total population in these sixteen self-contained cities, with an average of 8.59 buildings per acre of two-family dwelling area.

ϊ=> CD

5

ZD

« ι ο < » =

£

*

Ρ