What do you think?
Rate this book
Bourgeois Utopias: The Rise And Fall Of Suburbia
A noted urban historian traces the story of the suburb from its origins in nineteenth-century London to its twentieth-century demise in decentralized cities like Los Angeles.
272 pages, Paperback
First published November 3, 1987
14 people are currently reading
387 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
August 3, 2009
I read this classic of suburban studies while working the check-in counter of a country club swimming pool, which I found a hilarious irony.
July 21, 2014
Cited in everything really, finally got around to reading this and it was both better and worse than I was expecting. It takes the origins of the suburbs back further than I realised, to Georgian London. But first the main thesis on the suburb:
Here it is suburbia as bourgeois utopia, but what I found most fascinating were its earlier religious origins in Clapham, and on class fears in Manchester.
Originally, settlements on the urban fringe were, as the original definition of suburbe meant until the mid-18th century, 'a place of inferior, debased, and especially licentious habits of life' [6]. Pretty awesome. The wealthy lived in the centre of town, and the bourgeois merchants and artisans lived where they worked -- often above their shops, warehouses or workshops, with their employees living above them in the garretts. It is hard to imagine now, especially the ways in which the very rich and desperately poor lived immediately next to each other. One of the key insights of this book for me was the following:
It is so interesting to remember that this relentless desire to segregate by race and class so clear in today's society is a new thing, and taking this further, is partly driven by the fear and social unease emerging from revolution and ideas of equality -- and the need to be protected from the poor.
It is also driven by changing ideals of the family, a move to the nuclear family, more intense care and love lavished on children more likely to survive and as enjoined by evangelical religion. Or so said the 'Clapham Sect'led by the Thornton family and preacher William Wilberforce, and joined by their fellow religionists in building homes facing Clapham Common. This created the ideal of 'houses in a park' as opposed to the aristocratic rows and crescents of say Bath, and developed by architect John Nash in his design for Park Village alongside Regent's Park.
It is Manchester, however, that suburbia really took form as merchants abandoned the city for homes and communities in the outskirts, fundamentally changing the urban structure, however piecemeal. Fishman writes:
Thus Manchester comes to be described as the town where the distance is greatest between rich and poor -- and this by the time Engels is describing it in 1848. Here it is more clearly about both fears and ideals -- and what I like about Fishman is that he never forgets it is also always about money: 'The rush to suburbanize could never have occurred without a structure of land specualtion and building that permitted and encouraged it' [84].
Because of the money involved, some insurance against the hazards of speculation were required, and one of these appeared to have been homogeneity, a way of preserving land from 'less desirable neighbors or uses' [86].
It's interesting how he compares these examples to the US and to France. France, of course, never experienced such flight of the wealthy to the suburbs because during this period Haussmann transformed Paris to build grand new boulevards and rid it of its poor, making the city a haven for the middle classes as the country was for England. the US of course, took it up wholesale, with Olmstead learning from Nash and the designers of Manchester's neighbourhoods.
But it is interesting that Fishman never applies the insight of class separation to the US, consistently writing about all 'Americans' having access to the suburbs through government financing when in fact it was only white Americans. Thus there is whole dynamic around race fear that he is missing in his description of L.A., even though he cites Crabgrass Frontier by Kenneth Jackson, published two years earlier.
Still, this one of the earlier books on the subject, and does a good job of describing some of the more interesting cultural components forming the pull of the suburbs.
Its power derived ultimately from the capacity of suburban design to express a complex and compelling vision of the modern family freed from the corruption of the city, restored to harmony with natured, endowed with wealth and independence yet protected by a close-knit, stable community...Where other modern utopias have been collectivist, suburbia has built its vision of community on the primacy of private property and the individual family. Suburbia has founded its hopes for community stability on the shifting sands of land speculation and based its reconciliation of man and nature on teh capacity to exclude the urban world of work which is the ultimate source of its wealth' [x].
Here it is suburbia as bourgeois utopia, but what I found most fascinating were its earlier religious origins in Clapham, and on class fears in Manchester.
Originally, settlements on the urban fringe were, as the original definition of suburbe meant until the mid-18th century, 'a place of inferior, debased, and especially licentious habits of life' [6]. Pretty awesome. The wealthy lived in the centre of town, and the bourgeois merchants and artisans lived where they worked -- often above their shops, warehouses or workshops, with their employees living above them in the garretts. It is hard to imagine now, especially the ways in which the very rich and desperately poor lived immediately next to each other. One of the key insights of this book for me was the following:
English society was still something of a caste society in the sense that social distance was so marked that the priveleged felt no need to protect themselves further from the poor by physical distance. That the richest bankers in London lived literally surrounded by poor families did not in the least diminish the bankers' status. One might even say that in a caste society the rich need the constant and close presence of the poor to remind them of their privileges' [32].
It is so interesting to remember that this relentless desire to segregate by race and class so clear in today's society is a new thing, and taking this further, is partly driven by the fear and social unease emerging from revolution and ideas of equality -- and the need to be protected from the poor.
It is also driven by changing ideals of the family, a move to the nuclear family, more intense care and love lavished on children more likely to survive and as enjoined by evangelical religion. Or so said the 'Clapham Sect'led by the Thornton family and preacher William Wilberforce, and joined by their fellow religionists in building homes facing Clapham Common. This created the ideal of 'houses in a park' as opposed to the aristocratic rows and crescents of say Bath, and developed by architect John Nash in his design for Park Village alongside Regent's Park.
It is Manchester, however, that suburbia really took form as merchants abandoned the city for homes and communities in the outskirts, fundamentally changing the urban structure, however piecemeal. Fishman writes:
The older urban form involved the frequent and intimate contact of the middle and working classes. This closeness was precisely what the Manchester bourgeoisie had come to fear. they sought the most complete separation possible while maintaining the all-important contact with the iformation sources at the core' [82].
Thus Manchester comes to be described as the town where the distance is greatest between rich and poor -- and this by the time Engels is describing it in 1848. Here it is more clearly about both fears and ideals -- and what I like about Fishman is that he never forgets it is also always about money: 'The rush to suburbanize could never have occurred without a structure of land specualtion and building that permitted and encouraged it' [84].
Because of the money involved, some insurance against the hazards of speculation were required, and one of these appeared to have been homogeneity, a way of preserving land from 'less desirable neighbors or uses' [86].
It's interesting how he compares these examples to the US and to France. France, of course, never experienced such flight of the wealthy to the suburbs because during this period Haussmann transformed Paris to build grand new boulevards and rid it of its poor, making the city a haven for the middle classes as the country was for England. the US of course, took it up wholesale, with Olmstead learning from Nash and the designers of Manchester's neighbourhoods.
But it is interesting that Fishman never applies the insight of class separation to the US, consistently writing about all 'Americans' having access to the suburbs through government financing when in fact it was only white Americans. Thus there is whole dynamic around race fear that he is missing in his description of L.A., even though he cites Crabgrass Frontier by Kenneth Jackson, published two years earlier.
Still, this one of the earlier books on the subject, and does a good job of describing some of the more interesting cultural components forming the pull of the suburbs.
Read
January 23, 2018Fishman retreads a lot of familiar territory, although his real focus is on how the notion of a "utopian" space for the middle classes gets generated. It's an interesting idea... first we had cities that expressed bourgeois desire, then these were replaced by garden suburbs and eventually by suburb suburbs. But that's about the extent of it. I feel like I could draw the lines of connection myself just as well as Fishman did (not to sound too arrogant... I feel like most people who think about urbanity in any meaningful way could as well). I would be much more curious to read his more specific works on specific utopians (Corbusier et al).
December 3, 2023
American society is rich and unique. We are a nation who believes in American exceptionalism and takes pride in the structure of our communities. We work hard to achieve the level of success we desire. We strive to become elite in our society. This pride can be seen throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in the suburbs of America. Americans worked hard fit the middle class mold of society. How did we come to be this way? Is American society really that unique? This question may be answered by Dr. Robert Fishman, who received his Ph.D. in History from Harvard. In his book, Bourgeois Utopias, Dr. Fishman describes the creation and processes that led to American suburbia.
In reading the book, one can’t help but question the title. What is a Bourgeois Utopia? Dr. Fishman defines the phrase throughout his book in various ways. Bourgeois, meaning the middle class that are characterized by materialistic pursuits or concerns. Utopia, meaning an ideal place or state of social perfection. To combine the two words we find that Dr. Fishman is speaking of suburbia. Dr. Fishman takes the reader on a journey through London and France and back to the United States to argue his theory that the suburbia of the United States was created by a group of people across the Atlantic and continues to be shaped. Dr. Fishman best sums it up by claiming that it was the bourgeois of eighteenth century Britain that created the community that became the model for suburbia. “Suburbia, I believe, was the collective creation of the bourgeois elite in late eighteenth century London.”
The idea that suburbia is the creation of Eastern Europe is the answer to Dr. Fishman’s main question, “who invented suburbia, and why?” This question becomes the thesis of the book, that is “suburbia was indeed a cultural creation, a conscience choice based on the economic structure and cultural values of the Anglo-American bourgeoisie.” Dr. Fishman argues that there were several aspects that went in to creating the utopia, namely the nuclear family. This nuclear family was in contrast to the cities in London. The nuclear family was heavily influenced by evangelicalism. “This contradiction between the city and the new family was further sharpened by a religious movement that took hold with special strength among the upper middle class of London; the Evangelical movement.” This movement emphasized the importance of family and morals. Moral conduct and fear of the improper was championed by women in the family. The role of women is key in the shaping of the suburbs. If history has taught us one thing, it’s that the woman has the power to tame even the wild west!
Dr. Fishman does a great job of unfolding the history that led to Bourgeois Utopias. The history is presented chronologically, is well organized and is expressed with clarity and reason. HIs argument is convincing and the book is successful in it’s purpose. The reader will be easily sold on its premise. However, there are a number of other aspects that contributed to the shape of the rise of suburbia and it’s fall. Namely, the roles of minority groups that weren’t given the due they deserve. Of course, the focus is on the bourgeois and so the omission is understandable. The book has enough content to inform but it does get redundant at times. Distracting is the number of times Dr. Fishman uses any form of the words in his title: bourgeois and utopia, because it is excessive to say the least.
This is a book that best resounds with a generation older than my own. This is because the Utopia that is so well described in the book is nothing like I have ever lived. For this reason the book fails to completely catch the attention of the younger generation as they have never really experienced the full bourgeois utopia that Dr. Fishman so passionately writes of. They are children of the “techno-burb” or the “techno-city,” which Dr. Fishman describes as the current form of society that is being built. That’s not to say that idea of suburbia is without relevance. In popular culture, the theme of suburbia dying is one that is gaining attention. If Bourgeois Utopias had a soundtrack, it would be the album, “The Suburbs” by Indie rock band “Arcade Fire,” who devoted a whole album full of nostalgia and odes to the dying concept. Dr. Fishman is correct in concluding that the bourgeois utopia is on the track to becoming a memory, a thing of the past. “Whatever the fate of the new city, suburbia in its traditional sense now belongs to the past.”
Bourgeois Utopias contributes to the knowledge and understanding about the history of suburbia. Although the utopia aspect of our communities is fading and is losing it’s relevance to today’s culture, all history is important to understanding the past and our future. For this reason, Bourgeois Utopias is worthy of being read and interpreted. It is rich in historical research and convinces the reader of it’s contents. From Manchester to Los Angeles, the bourgeois had crafted their own utopian way of living. If we are ever to try to regain the bourgeois utopia, we can look back to how we came to it in the first place. That being said, I hope to never hear the word bourgeois again.
In reading the book, one can’t help but question the title. What is a Bourgeois Utopia? Dr. Fishman defines the phrase throughout his book in various ways. Bourgeois, meaning the middle class that are characterized by materialistic pursuits or concerns. Utopia, meaning an ideal place or state of social perfection. To combine the two words we find that Dr. Fishman is speaking of suburbia. Dr. Fishman takes the reader on a journey through London and France and back to the United States to argue his theory that the suburbia of the United States was created by a group of people across the Atlantic and continues to be shaped. Dr. Fishman best sums it up by claiming that it was the bourgeois of eighteenth century Britain that created the community that became the model for suburbia. “Suburbia, I believe, was the collective creation of the bourgeois elite in late eighteenth century London.”
The idea that suburbia is the creation of Eastern Europe is the answer to Dr. Fishman’s main question, “who invented suburbia, and why?” This question becomes the thesis of the book, that is “suburbia was indeed a cultural creation, a conscience choice based on the economic structure and cultural values of the Anglo-American bourgeoisie.” Dr. Fishman argues that there were several aspects that went in to creating the utopia, namely the nuclear family. This nuclear family was in contrast to the cities in London. The nuclear family was heavily influenced by evangelicalism. “This contradiction between the city and the new family was further sharpened by a religious movement that took hold with special strength among the upper middle class of London; the Evangelical movement.” This movement emphasized the importance of family and morals. Moral conduct and fear of the improper was championed by women in the family. The role of women is key in the shaping of the suburbs. If history has taught us one thing, it’s that the woman has the power to tame even the wild west!
Dr. Fishman does a great job of unfolding the history that led to Bourgeois Utopias. The history is presented chronologically, is well organized and is expressed with clarity and reason. HIs argument is convincing and the book is successful in it’s purpose. The reader will be easily sold on its premise. However, there are a number of other aspects that contributed to the shape of the rise of suburbia and it’s fall. Namely, the roles of minority groups that weren’t given the due they deserve. Of course, the focus is on the bourgeois and so the omission is understandable. The book has enough content to inform but it does get redundant at times. Distracting is the number of times Dr. Fishman uses any form of the words in his title: bourgeois and utopia, because it is excessive to say the least.
This is a book that best resounds with a generation older than my own. This is because the Utopia that is so well described in the book is nothing like I have ever lived. For this reason the book fails to completely catch the attention of the younger generation as they have never really experienced the full bourgeois utopia that Dr. Fishman so passionately writes of. They are children of the “techno-burb” or the “techno-city,” which Dr. Fishman describes as the current form of society that is being built. That’s not to say that idea of suburbia is without relevance. In popular culture, the theme of suburbia dying is one that is gaining attention. If Bourgeois Utopias had a soundtrack, it would be the album, “The Suburbs” by Indie rock band “Arcade Fire,” who devoted a whole album full of nostalgia and odes to the dying concept. Dr. Fishman is correct in concluding that the bourgeois utopia is on the track to becoming a memory, a thing of the past. “Whatever the fate of the new city, suburbia in its traditional sense now belongs to the past.”
Bourgeois Utopias contributes to the knowledge and understanding about the history of suburbia. Although the utopia aspect of our communities is fading and is losing it’s relevance to today’s culture, all history is important to understanding the past and our future. For this reason, Bourgeois Utopias is worthy of being read and interpreted. It is rich in historical research and convinces the reader of it’s contents. From Manchester to Los Angeles, the bourgeois had crafted their own utopian way of living. If we are ever to try to regain the bourgeois utopia, we can look back to how we came to it in the first place. That being said, I hope to never hear the word bourgeois again.
May 17, 2022
“The old cities would not completely disappear, but
they would lose both their financial and their industrial functions, surviving simply because of an inherent human love of crowds. The "post-urban" city, Wells predicted, will be "essentially a bazaar, a great gallery of shops and places of concourse and rendezvous, a pedestrian place, its pathways reinforced by lifts and moving platforms, and shielded from the weather, and altogether a very spacious, brilliant, and entertaining agglomeration.” In short, the great metropolis will dwindle to what we would today call a massive shopping mall…”
I’m shaking and crying at this stupid prescient vision.
they would lose both their financial and their industrial functions, surviving simply because of an inherent human love of crowds. The "post-urban" city, Wells predicted, will be "essentially a bazaar, a great gallery of shops and places of concourse and rendezvous, a pedestrian place, its pathways reinforced by lifts and moving platforms, and shielded from the weather, and altogether a very spacious, brilliant, and entertaining agglomeration.” In short, the great metropolis will dwindle to what we would today call a massive shopping mall…”
I’m shaking and crying at this stupid prescient vision.
January 3, 2025
Amazing book, one of my favorites I've read in awhile.
I felt like I was arriving at an understanding of modern suburbia from a totally different angle by the end. The suburbs were conceptually taken apart and then put back together to a point where the concept of the modern suburb is questionable — edge city makes more sense — but the conclusions of cultural degradation, segregation, and unsustainability persist.
I felt like I was arriving at an understanding of modern suburbia from a totally different angle by the end. The suburbs were conceptually taken apart and then put back together to a point where the concept of the modern suburb is questionable — edge city makes more sense — but the conclusions of cultural degradation, segregation, and unsustainability persist.
October 10, 2017
"Every true suburb is the outcome of two opposing forces, an attraction toward the opportunities of the great city and a simultaneous repulsion against urban life”.
May 15, 2023
Once again, shout out to the English for bringing out the worst in the world.
August 4, 2009
Awful title, but really good book.
He dispels the common notion that suburbia was born in America in the 1950s by giving a social/economic history of suburban growth; first, in the UK and then later in France and the US.
The first chapters on rise of suburbs in London and Manchester were the best, while I thought his later discussion of Paris, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles was a bit shallow. Last section on the rise of the technoburb (another awful word choice) was very good as well.
He dispels the common notion that suburbia was born in America in the 1950s by giving a social/economic history of suburban growth; first, in the UK and then later in France and the US.
The first chapters on rise of suburbs in London and Manchester were the best, while I thought his later discussion of Paris, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles was a bit shallow. Last section on the rise of the technoburb (another awful word choice) was very good as well.
January 7, 2012
A great read that connects social movements of the early 18th century England, slavery, and crucial changes in everyday functions of 18th century household to the classic notion of suburbia. Every urban enthusiast should take the time to read this book!
May 30, 2016
Stay tuned to read the full review on The Outlaw Urbanist (www.outlaw-urbanist.com).
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews