Cardinal Place Geometry in the American South

Southeastern Geographer Vol. 24, No. 2, November 1984, pp. 65-77 CARDINAL PLACE GEOMETRY IN THE AMERICAN SOUTH* Harold M. Elliott In the past, a number of attempts have been made to illustrate the nature of the urban structure within the American South. (2) A few studies have illustrated this structure as a part of the national hierarchy .^) Most such studies have been based on empirical investigations into the kinds of economic functions that are found in places of different sizes. This is in keeping with Christaller's notion that central places fall within certain discrete size classes and that the locations of these places follow a regular pattern ofnested hexagons. Although discrete size hierarchies are easy to identify, it is rare that the places so classified form spatial patterns even remotely resembling nested hexagons. (3) Furthermore , because the information used to establish these hierarchies usually is available only in the present, historical investigations into how these hierarchies might have evolved are often impossible. It is possible, however, to use another method to identify urban structures. This method, called cardinal place geometry, utilizes some of the basic aims of the Christaller central place system to arrive at a distinctly different notion of urban structure and landscape geometry. A basic element of this method involves identifying where people in smaller places are likely to go when they need access to higher order opportunities, goods, and services than can be supplied within their immediate areas. Various ways of looking at this problem lead to three closely related systems that together constitute cardinal place geometry. CARDINAL PLACE GEOMETRY. In his k = 3 system, Christaller argued that auxiliary central places will develop at the intersection of three higher order regions. (4) He later argued that individuals living within such places, when they wished to buy things that were not available locally, would divide their attention and their higher order patronage equally between each oftheir three neighboring larger object * The author wishes to thank the University of Miami Department of Geography for making available research facilities and computer time during the early months of this study. Dr. Elliott is Associate Professor of Geography at Weber State College in Ogden, Utah 84408. 66Southeastern Geographer places. However, because the landscape is seldom so obliging of theory, smaller towns usually are located much closer to one larger place than to others. Under these conditions, as Huff has argued, the inhabitants ofthe subject place would be more likely to focus most oftheir attention and patronage on the nearest larger object place, and less attention on the more remote larger object places. (5) If the nearest larger object place is only slightly larger than the subject place, then only a few higher order goods and services beyond those available within the subject place itself would be likely to attract the attention of the smaller place's inhabitants. However, if the nearest larger object place is much larger, then many of its resources would be sought by individuals from the smaller place. Since the availability ofhigher and higher order goods and services corresponds fairly closely with population, it follows that higher and higher order elements must be sought in successively larger and larger places located farther and farther away.(6) This search sequence identifies a hierarchy of nearest larger neighbors (hereafter referred to as NLNs). (7) The NLN hierarchy, or system, is the first component of cardinal place geometry. The 1980 NLN system for each of the South's five largest metropolitan areas (the Miami, Atlanta, Tampa, New Orleans, and Memphis SMSAs) appear in Figure 1. As an example of how this map should be interpreted, consider the case of Atlanta. Figure 1 identifies St. Louis as Atlanta's first, or closest NLN. It also identifies Washington as Atlanta's second NLN (the nearest place to Atlanta where things not available in St. Louis are likely to be found), Chicago as its third NLN (the nearest place to Atlanta where things not available in Washington are likely to be found), and New York as its fourth, or final NLN. For places within the United States, New York City is always the final, or highest order NLN (where all things are likely...