Editing Concentric zone model (section)

==Criticisms==
The model has been challenged by many contemporary urban geographers. First, the model does not work well with cities outside the United States, in particular with those developed under different historical contexts. Even in the United States, because of changes such as advancement in transportation and information technology and transformation in global economy, cities are no longer organized with clear "zones" (see: [[Los Angeles School| Los Angeles School of Urban Analysis]]).

* It describes the peculiar American geography, where the [[inner city]] is poor while [[suburb]]s are wealthy; the inverse is the norm elsewhere.
* It assumes an isotropic plane – an even, unchanging landscape.
** Physical features – land may restrict growth of certain sectors; hills and water features may make some locations unusually desirable for residential purposes.
* [[Commuter village]]s defy the theory, being a distant part of the commuter zone. 
* Decentralization of shops, manufacturing industry (see [[Industrial suburb]]), and entertainment.
* Urban regeneration and [[gentrification]] – more expensive property can be found in formerly 'low class' housing areas.
* Many new housing estates were built on the edges of cities in Britain.
* It does not address local [[urban politics]] and forces of [[globalization]].
* The model does not fit [[wikt:polycentric|polycentric cities]], for example [[Stoke-on-Trent]].