LOCATIONAL CONFLICT PATTERNS AND URBAN ECOLOGICAL STRUCTURE

The existing and ever-changing geography of the city and its region is the end-product of innumerable conflicts over locational issues. The provision of public services, attempts to close schools, the enforcement and modification of zoning codes and the alteration of traffic patterns are familiar examples of the types of locational issues which confront most large and growing cities. Although planners and policy makers may seek to avert such conflicts, it is generally regarded (particularly in the North American case) that market forces play the dominant role in the eventual siting of private and public investments and in the spatial allocation of noxious and amenity features.’ As a consequence, it is not surprising that the spatial distributions of the costs and benefits associated with changes in the city’s physical structure accord well with the geographic patterns of its citizens’ status and political power. Indeed, the varying abilities of people and communities to command a voice in designing, maintaining (protecting) and enhancing their local areas have facilitated a spatial polarization which has prompted questioning of the marketplace ethic. (Bunge, 1975; Harvey, 1971). In this paper locational issues are viewed as resulting from divergent interpretations of ‘best