Suburbanization and the Formation of Metropolitan Areas

Introduction to Suburbanization

The divide between city and rural areas, and the rise of the metropolis, were defining features of the twentieth century. While the development of cities brought its own challenges, the growth of cities into metropolises created new hinterlands unlike anything earlier urban forms had produced. The new pattern of development across metropolitan areas and their peripheries came to be called suburbanization. In the United States, this process was largely driven by the growth of the middle and upper classes. However, urbanization also occurred in industrial cities, where working-class employment created settlements in industrial suburbs.

Modern scholars identify three types of suburban growth: first, the residential suburbs created by the wealthy; second, the industrial suburbs; and third, the development of "unincorporated districts at the urban fringe" (Harris; Larkham, 91). Each type reflects different economic pressures and demographic forces, yet all are part of the broader historical process through which metropolitan areas have expanded and evolved.

Land use is one important indicator of proper development and planning. Land use criteria became institutionalized more formally after the Second World War, introducing non-market controls on the economics of land. In the United States, suburbanization has brought about changes in the institutions that govern the metropolis and has also transformed the nature of infrastructure and transport. Public transit and commuting facilities encouraged populations to seek suburban areas for residence, spawning housing developments and various forms of residential real estate far from city centers. While the metropolis remained the locus of business and work, the practice of living away from the city made it necessary to extend metropolitan facilities into the suburbs (Fellmann; Getis; Getis, 396). The process thus became interdependent: suburbs grew in relation to the areas nearest them, and industries created industrial suburbs in turn. Suburbanization is, fundamentally, a historical process.

Suburbanization and Metropolitan Areas

All metropolitan areas have suburbs today, and likewise all of them have governing bodies that oversee metropolitan issues and requirements. Many of these bodies also have jurisdiction over suburbs, which can create obstacles to suburban growth, particularly in housing. Multiple governing systems operating within a single metropolitan area generate extensive regulation, often leading to poor building standards, inconsistent zoning, and weak enforcement. Businesses and residents alike tend to blame the administration for this situation. In addition to contending with a host of conflicting laws, businesses must also navigate different communities that operate under different systems. The result is growth without planning (Banfield; Grodzins, 30).

Land Use, Governance, and Public Services

One of the primary mechanisms for controlling land use is zoning. In most metropolitan cities, independent governing bodies coexisting within a single metropolitan area frequently create problems for which businesses and residents hold the administration responsible. The fragmentation of authority means that no single body can coordinate consistent land-use policy across the broader metropolitan region.

Suburbanization also brings with it demands for public services to support new suburban developments. Schools, hospitals, sewage systems, water disposal and supply, transportation, and other infrastructure must all be provided — typically by a government authority or as an extension of the metropolitan authority. These service demands represent a significant challenge for growing suburban areas, where the pace of residential development often outstrips the capacity of public institutions to respond (Clawson, 141).

Chicago as a Case Study

In Chicago, urbanization has had historical, demographic, and ethnic consequences, and has historically been shaped by those same forces. These factors changed the character of city life and influenced the growth of the suburbs. The physical topography of the region and the choices of individual communities to segregate into distinct suburbs determined how Chicago's suburbs developed. However, the city's housing needs were poorly managed, leaving conditions inside the city largely unchanged while the affluent and middle classes redefined the suburbs for themselves. This gave rise to "contested areas" within the city, along with a host of issues including race relations, competition for resources, and changes in the physical environment. While the population and its composition affect the process of growth, the manner in which that growth occurred had a deep impact on the population itself (Koval; Bennett; Bennett; Demissie; Garner; Kim, 56).

Chicago's pattern of suburban development reflects broader national trends documented in urban sociology. The city's experience illustrates how unplanned expansion can produce social fragmentation, particularly when growth is driven by private market forces and fragmented governance rather than coordinated metropolitan planning. Like Detroit, Chicago demonstrates how industrial decline combined with demographic sorting can entrench patterns of inequality across metropolitan space.

Conclusion

Primarily, small cities develop into metropolises, thereby generating suburban development — most of which takes the form of residential suburbs. These suburbs arise because the metropolis offers employment but not sufficient housing, and the services found in metropolitan centers are sustained largely by commuting populations from the suburbs. The growth of the metropolis is therefore dependent on the growth of its suburbs, and suburbanization is a historical process shaped by economic, demographic, and political forces.

As the Chicago case study illustrates, urbanization carries historical and ethnic consequences, including the risk of social fragmentation when expansion is unplanned and racially unequal. The lesson is clear: better town planning is required wherever urban expansion occurs, and suburbs must be treated as integral parts of the metropolis rather than as peripheral afterthoughts.