The Residential Structure of Metropolitan Sydney

Abstract

THE GRAFTING OF FACTOR ANALYSIS onto classical social area analysis (Parkes, 1971) has provided the geographer with a methodology with which to explore the social geography of urban areas. While social area analysis, senm stricto, has been shown to be operationally unsatisfactory as a model of the dynamics of increasing societal scale (Abu-Lughod, 1969) it has nevertheless provided a stimulus because of its spatial potentiality. The theory of societal scale (Wilson and Wilson, 1945) fails to explain the structural differentiation of urban subareas, an end-product of social area analysis, and laterly, factorial ecology. Because of this fundamental shortcoming Udry (1964) recommended that a theory of the dimensions of urban differentiation be considered in its own right. Concurring with this proposition McElrath (1968) sets out to demonstrate that variations in residential structure can be regarded as a function of social differentia, per se. The adaptation of the social area model to this end has culminated in the formulation of a theory of residential differentiation by blending aspects of sociological and geographical theory (see Timms, 1971, 95-121).The progress is due, in part, to the reconciliation of the divergent approaches to spatial structure implicit in the concentric (Burgess) and sectoral (Hoyt) models. An underlying assumption of both models was that, a priori, the differentiation within cities is unidimensional. Shevky and Bell (1955), who maintained that this assumption had no valid foundations, deduced at least three dimensions of differentiation in their theory -social rank, urbanization and ethnicity -each possibly with its own unique pattern of distribution.The adoption of factor structure as a model of residential structure has confirmed the postulate of multidimensionality, and amplified its spatial expression.In an important piece of work Anderson and Egeland (1961) concluded that the zonal and sectoral models 'were not mutually exclusive but were in fact legitimate descriptions of two different aspects of reality' (Abu-Lughod, 1969). The conMr Badcock is a Lecturer in the

Suburbanizing Disadvantage in Australian Cities: Sociospatial Change in an Era of Neoliberalism

“…The analysis of urban sociospatial polarization in Australian cities has a long genesis. From the 1970s, Australian urban geographers have noted distinctive urban social disparities (Badcock, ; Stimson, ). The “discovery” of concentrations of social disadvantage in inner city locations during the 1960s and 70s paralleled contemporary urban policy concerns in other countries.…”

The Ecology of Suicide in an Australian Metropolis: The Case of Sydney

“…MULTIPLE AND SIMPLE REGRESSION VALVES FOR STEPWISE REGRESSION, ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL VARilABLES AND SUICIDEBY LGA,SYDNEY, 1971SYDNEY, -1973 …”

The Internal Heterogeneity of Australian Census Units and its Effect on Social Ecological Analyses

“…Of Australian applications of the methods of factorial ecology Jones (1965), Parkes (1971Parkes ( , 1973 and Timms (1971) used CDs as analytical units. Badcock (1973), Houghton (1975, 1979, Jones (1969), Logan et al (1975) and Stimson and Cleland (1975) used various aggregations of CDs as their analytical units. The mean populations of these aggregations ranged from 3058 (Houghton, 1975) to 37,066 (Badcock, 1973).…”

“…Badcock (1973), Houghton (1975, 1979, Jones (1969), Logan et al (1975) and Stimson and Cleland (1975) used various aggregations of CDs as their analytical units. The mean populations of these aggregations ranged from 3058 (Houghton, 1975) to 37,066 (Badcock, 1973). Although in the U.S.A. much attention was devoted in the 1950s to the question of the homogeneity of Census tracts (see Timms, 1971: 39-44 for the main references), as far as I am aware there has been no examination of the homogeneity of Australian Census units.…”