The Burgess Zonal Hypothesis and its Critics

APROXIMATELY fifteen years ago, E. W. Burgess startled the sociological world by proposing the hypothesis that cities naturally become organized into five concentric circular zones: i. the Central Business District; 2. the Zone in Transition; 3. the Zone of Workingmen's Homes; 4. the Zone of Better Residences; and 5. the Commuters' Zone.' Since it was first proposed, this hypothesis has been both widely approved and severely criticized by sociologists. It has been declared valid by some when applied to the cities of Chicago, Long Beach,2 Montreal,3 and Rochester;4 and it has been accepted by many as a valuable frame of reference for interpreting a variety of urban data-crime, dance halls, delinquency, dependency, family organization and disorganization, gangs, hotels, mental disorders, population composition, religious institutions, suicides, and vice.' In contrast with those who accept and approve the Burgess hypothesis, several sociologists have spurned it as worthless, and a few have branded it as false.6 This paper is a short critical review of the present status of this hypothesis. The Significance of Observed Irregularities in Spatial Structure. The most widespread criticism of the Burgess zonal hypothesis arises from the fact that various cities do not actually conform to an ideal circular spatial pattern. Chicago, for example, fits more closely into a pattern of concentric semicircles than of complete circles, and even this semicircular pattern shows important irregularities. The zones of Montreal, as mapped by