James E. Vance

Land Assignment in the Precapitalist, Capitalist, and Postcapitalist City

One of the fundamental questions we encounter in any consideration of cities is the basis of space assignment within the area of potential urban development. This may appear to be a simple matter of the operation of some sort of rentgradient surface which allows only the economically sturdy to cling to the dizzy heights, with stamina measured along the rather simplistic lines of earnings ability expressed in terms of land values. The obvious quality of this system of assignment should suggest that it stems from contemporary thought and is restricted to the present economic system. It is not at all necessary to argue here the precise qualities of such systems except in the matter of land allocation. In that context we might hold that the present encompasses two basic components of land assignment: that founded on land rent, and that founded on state command. Practices in the United States

A Comparative Study of Nine Central Business Districts

T pIHE Central Business D)istrict (CBD) of the American city is so familiar to the average citizen that he is likely to take it for granted. Under one name or another, it is thought of as an area of urban concentration that has been in existence since the beginning of the city and that will last as long as the city endures. But the CBD, as it is known today, is relatively modern, and its place in the city of tomorrow is a subject of wide debate. This uncertainty is based upon the many problems with which planners and other students of the city are grappling. To meet these problems, a better understanding of the district is necessary, and this cannot be attained through concentrating on any one city. Instead, comparative studies are needed, just as they are in many other phases of urban research. This paper is one of the products of such a study, dealing with the CBDs of nine cities-Worcester, Massachusetts; Grand Rapids, Michigan; Salt Lake City, Utah; Tacoma, Washington; Sacramento, California; Phoenix, Arizona; Tulsa, Oklahoma; Mobile, Alabama; and Roanoke, Virginia. A comparison of CBDs involves sev-

Geography and the Study of Cities.

When some twenty-five years ago the American geographical community sought to inventory its accomplishments and envision its prospects, there was no hesitation in designating one of the chapters as simply &dquo;Urban Geography&dquo; (James and Jones, 1954). During the first decade after World War II, one which saw the brash adolescence of urban geography, there was a youthful certainty that there is an order in human affairs and it may best be read in the newest thoughts. In the quarter century that has passed since 1953, we have begun to see two frailties of such thinking: it is indeed doubtful that the ordering of human affairs is as neat and immutable as it then seemed; and it is pretty clear that the present gives us at best only a partial indication of both the nature and the provenance of what limited order may exist. Today it is hard to talk about &dquo;urban geography&dquo; because that title would seem to suggest an internally coherent body of study comprehending all geographers’ work on cities as distinguished from efforts to study other aspects of geographical concern. Yet reflection on the current state of the field hardly substantiates such a belief. There is much work on cities that does not fall