How does the Hoyt sector model differ from the Burgess model?

• A. It maintains neat concentric rings with uniform density.
• B. It envisions wedge-shaped sectors radiating from the CBD along transportation routes, with irregular edges and anisotropic growth.
• C. It assumes a single CBD with equal land values everywhere.
• D. It dismisses the role of accessibility in land use.

Answer: (B)

The key idea here is that the Hoyt sector model explains urban land use as shaped by accessibility along transport routes, creating sectors that radiate out from the central business district. Growth is directional—anisotropic—so certain directions with good access become wedge-shaped sectors, while edges are irregular because streets, rivers, and rail lines bend and constrain development.

This stands in contrast to the Burgess model, which imagines growth expanding evenly in all directions from the core, forming neat concentric rings with relatively uniform density. In Hoyt’s view, value and land use vary by sector due to transportation access, leading to those irregular, wedge-like areas extending along major corridors and other lines of influence. Choices that describe neat rings, equal land values everywhere, or a dismissal of accessibility don’t fit how the Hoyt model envisions urban growth.