Invented Cities: The Creation of Landscape in Nineteenth-Century New York and Boston

by Mona Domosh

Why do cities look the way they do? In this intriguing new book, Mona Domosh seeks to answer this question by comparing the strikingly different landscapes of two great American cities, Boston and New York. Although these two cities appeared to be quite similar through the eighteenth century, distinctive characteristics emerged as social and economic differences developed. Domosh explores the physical differences between Boston and New York, comparing building patterns and architectural styles to show how a society’s vision creates its own distinctive urban form. Cities, Domosh contends, are visible representations of individual and group beliefs, values, tensions, and fears.

Using an interdisciplinary approach that encompasses economics, politics, architecture, historical and cultural geography, and urban studies, Domosh shows how the middle and upper classes of Boston and New York, the "building elite," inscribed their visions of social order and social life on four landscape features during the latter half of the nineteenth New York’s retail district and its commercial skyscrapers, and Boston’s Back Bay and its Common and park system. New York’s self-expression translated into unlimited commercial and residential expansion, conspicuous consumption, and architecture designed to display wealth and prestige openly. Boston, in contrast, focused more on culture. The urban gentry limited skyscraper construction, prevented commercial development of Boston Common, and maintained homes and parks near the business district. Many fascinating lithographs illustrate the two cities’ contrasting visions.

Genres: Nonfiction, Urban Studies

195 pages, Paperback

First published March 27, 1996

Reviews

[Matico · Rating 2 out of 5]

Although hampered by the use of reified concepts of class and class interests, Domosh's research yields some interesting results. Even her simplistic approach to society usefully maps important differences between Boston and New York in the 19th Century.

The book's pretentious title represents an intention that is not fulfilled within its pages. Domosh's materialism emphasizes the geographic and economically determining factors more than the specifics of the ideology that "invented" the cities. Worse still, the concept of landscape invoked in the title remains undeveloped in the book, serving merely as a blanket term that represents ideological forms (class "identity," aesthetics, architecture, etc.) alongside the concrete "facts" (economics, class relations, geography).

This becomes a problem because the book never entirely succeeds in making the transition from differentiating New York and Boston society to differentiating their built forms. On page 122, for example, a section on "The Design of the Back Bay" trails off with the following comparison, "And, in the end, many of the houses built in the later years of the Back Bay development look surprisingly similar to New York's brownstones of the Upper West and East Side." With a more inclusive analysis of urban form, Domosh could see that New York developers often aimed for precisely the kind of staid, restrained aesthetic that characterized Boston (at the limited scale of a single block or part of one). Likewise, the later development of the Back Bay could be built by smaller and less cultured investors on a lower-prestige model.

The book's conclusion demonstrates a failure to properly understand the context in which such a study becomes interesting. Comparisons to the specter of the "postmodern city" seem out of place. Nonetheless, Domosh's original research is admirable, and maps of skyscraper and department store developments that she has produced will remain useful. With the caveats above, the book provides a good model for studying the geography of American cities, and a very useful framework for architectural history. With such a project as a background, architectural objects and urban plans take on an interest and a reality that they lack when studied in isolation.

[Katy McBride · Rating 4 out of 5]

Enjoyed this for what it is, but I felt Domosh leaves out a major piece of the time- The middle and working class. Overall the book does a good job explaining the transition and growth of the cities. She does a great job explaining the power and role of the elite class and the development of New York and Boston. Gentrification it is not new, it is just new in terms of public acknowledgment and recognition. We have historically this place people overtime in order to create a space for the elite. Domosh does an excellent job of Showing the origins of this practice. I do you think a mention of the middle class and working class would’ve been important in this piece.

[Text Addict · Rating 3 out of 5]

I probably didn't find this book revelatory because I already knew a lot about the history and geography of both cities. I mean, it's hard to be impressed when a book's conclusions seem very obvious. Still, even the obvious does have to be stated sometimes.

[Lake · Rating 3 out of 5]

Notes:

- talks about the intentional shaping of urban landscapes in 19th-century new york and boston
- main idea is that physical environment = invented, not natural growth
- social groups/power structures shaped the cities
- urban design decisions were influenced by evolving social notions (class, gender, identity)
- physical changes instill different values and contribute to social hierarchies
- civilize masses, provide a stage for the elite
- cities reflect power and values
- zoning keeps classes separate
- development is messy
- good use of case studies by Domosh

The main idea of this book is that cities are invented, not built. The book explores how 19th Century New York and Boston were shaped not just by buildings and streets, but by the evolving sociopolitical and cultural agendas of the time period. Domosh shows how New York and Boston were deliberately "invented" to push and reflect social norms of the time. She does this by comparing the two cities using accounts and records to show the key aspects of New York and Boston at the time and how they tie in with the evolving social hierarchies.

My Thoughts:
(Preface: my extractions from the book are not directly linked to the contents. My ideas about this book are just observations I made while reading and even might be contrary to the idea of cities not being built but rather invented. I am perhaps overemphasizing the agency of residents compared to what Domosh is really trying to convey.) I liked this book because it introduced a new perspective to me about the importance of class and power in relation to urban planning. Planners are often ridiculed and told the horror of how their decisions have affected those in lower socioeconomic brackets, yet this book introduced me to the idea that the city is a reflection of the people, not necessarily those in charge. Though power and status still hold their place in design and planning decisions, it is the inhabitants that are ultimate.
On the other hand, I might be misinterpreting Domosh in diminishing the importance of those in power (planners, municipalities, wealthy elites). After all, the "inventors" are the ones "inventing" the cities. This is the nuance I wished Domosh would have touched on. Perhaps its the planners who are deliberate, but the inhabitants who shape the space in reality. This lived experience doesn’t negate the “invention” but adds a layer of reinterpretation that Domosh touches on only lightly when discussing contestation. I think my perspective is more democratic in viewing a city practically, but Domosh is really arguing for how power structures transform into physical urban structures. My final takeaway would be that the city is “invented” by those in power to reflect their values, but inhabitants, through their everyday actions, add layers of meaning that can reshape those original intentions.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

As an occasionally disgruntled Boston resident, this is perhaps the book I’ve recommended to people the most in real life. Yet I just realized that I never gave my two pesetas worth here in cyberspace. As it’s been a few years, I can’t recall all the particular nuances of this – such as whether “The Creation of Landscape…” as subtitle comes close to anything meaningful - but this is definitely an illuminating read if you ever wondered just what happened to seemingly reverse the destinies of Boston and New York during the nineteenth century. It’s a century where a few Brahmins take the helm and essentially drop anchor whereas New York had a less solidified leadership and thus “The City” burgeoned through diverse means and a certain lack of control from above. Such geographical factors like the potential for shipping obviously benefitted the island, but the powers that be in Beantown aided their increasing stagnation by pushing all fledgling industries outside of town and rested on their cultural laurels. Again, I can’t speak to the particulars of the writing and research but I recall it as offering a great historical account of something that in, say, 1802 might not have been predicted.

[Kara · Rating 3 out of 5]

Urban studies is always interesting and Mona makes a clear summary of the differences between the development of Boston and of New York City. I would argue many of these differentiating founding principles are still driving culture and continued variances between the modern cities as well. Having studied under Professor Bowden, same as Mona, I may have been over prepared with the material she presented in this book and felt that it could have been a more concise presentation. Still a great overview and with a complete bibliography listing many additional excellent sources.

[Margaret · Rating 5 out of 5]

borrowed for NY Class and historic springs/memory/relic paper

pages of note:
p. 2: 2nd parag, Today is the landscape, really people's social visions
p. 3: can the same be said today about Urban landscapes parag?
p. 3: idea of iconography in cities, cities as works of art
p. 4: text and context
p. 5: "...built environment must incorporate an understanding of the individuals who shape that environment and the socioeconomic context in which those individual decisions are made."

really great text!