| The focus of this research is on improving the understanding of how multifunctional periphery developments in metropolitan areas come into existence. Of particular interest are those peripheral clusters that form in close proximity to major regional shopping centers and become functionally a part of those centers. Most studies that have previously addressed this issue have done so within a generalized format of "suburban development." In this instance, however, emphasis is placed on the processes involved in the formation of spatial clusters that are labeled multifunctional periphery developments. The forces which give rise to both the processes and the evolving pattern are set forth and examined.Metropolitan Milwaukee serves as the context for this investigation. A case study approach is employed and therefore the results are not generalizable. Within the local context two clusters of high density multifunctional periphery developments are identified. The criteria employed to define MPD's are partially drawn from the work of Muller (1981). Additional criteria are developed by the author. Employing these criteria, multifunctional cluster locations are found to occupy a set of unique sites within the metropolitan area. These are sites which seem to favor the kinds of activities traditionally associated with the CBD. The rise of these alternate clusters has reduced the CBD's dominance as a multifunctional center. However, manufacturing employment seldom accounted for the observed changes in diversified employment within these concentrations. Instead, most of the changes were in service employment, especially in finance, insurance, and real estate. The major regional shopping centers around which MPD's evolved were those located in high income residential areas.Multifunctional periphery developments represent new employment growth centers. On reviewing the makeup of the new employment pools, though, it becomes clear that minority and low income persons residing elsewhere in the metropolitan area are essentially cut off from these new employment growth zones. These groups are the least suburbanized and most heavily dependent on public transportation to employment centers. Thus, the current changes in the location of employment growth has not benefitted persons who are anchored in locations with limited access. The present pattern of employment opportunity locations leads to what some researchers describe as the mismatch hypothesis.The findings of this study illustrate the changes which are taking place in employment center location and function. The rise of new employment centers which compete with the CBD for dominance is becoming more commonplace. Therefore, geographers and planners need to acknowledge the complexity of the emerging clusters of economic activity within metropolitan centers if they are to devise new theories of urban growth and new formats for evaluating their contribution to overall metropolitan development. |
