過去之研究顯示，一旦效用函數和預算限制式設定，則根據競租標準 (bid-rent criterion) 以所得高低來檢視家計單位的空間分配，可用來決定依據所得排列家計單位在空間上的遠近順序。Alonso (1964) 認爲美國的富人多住在都市周邊，窮人反住到市中心區是傳統歐洲居住型態的異例。但是 Mills and Hamilton   (1989) 則認爲所得水準愈提高，美國的居住型態才是常態。兩者均未提及制度 (institutional setting) 對居住型態的影響。Fischel  (1985) 則認爲對郊區土地消費量做最低數量 (minimum lotsize)的分區管制 (zoning) 使窮人無法負擔得起龐大的購屋成本，只好窩居在市中心地帶狹小的公寓裡，以支付相對小額的租金或房價。本文則從另一個角度來看問題。即對都市土地消費額給予最高數量（maximum lot size) 的限制，且依身份限制農村土地的消費，將反而使富人的競租函數變陡而多住到市中心來。實證發現大台北地區家戶所得與其住宅距離中心商業區 (CBD)之公里數呈反向關係。此結果不但可以爲 Mills and Hamilton (1989) 之困惑做一註腳，提供 Fischel 觀點的反例，而且也可以附和 Alonso 對地小人多地區居住型態的觀察。

Alonso (1964) considered the American rich living in suburban areas and the American poor in urban centers an anomaly to traditional European and Third World cities where the poor usually inhabit the peripheral areas, while the rich and middle class live centrally. Mills and Hamilton (1989) postulated that once the level of income of an economy increases, the American type of spatial ordering of households according to income will then appear. Both ignore the effects of institutional setting on residential choice. Fischel (1985) acknowledged that American minimum lot size zoning in suburban areas is the most important reason for the poor to live in urban apartments. This paper then hypothesizes that the maximum lot size regulation will make the bid-rent function of the rich steeper. Empirical study finds that in Taipei Area, households' income levels and their locational distances from CBD are conversely related. This finding may be a good footnote not only to the arguments of the locational pattern of households between Alonso and Mills and Hamilton, but also to Fischel's postulation.