According to More, the concepts such private property is null and void in utopia; while equality is the dominant theme in the approach. Given the state of collectivism, utopia provides that all citizens are entitled to all facilities in the respective society. More further advocated for the reduction of working time such that the society could achieve a more egalitarian approach to life; hoping that utopia could be resilient through several generations (More, 2002). To educate more utopians; offspring of the pioneers, it was imperative to propose a more rigorous education system.
Given that More viewed the family as the basic unit of utopia, he proposed a variety of rules concerning sex and role of the married in his utopian society. Apart from these common values of utopia, other more concrete aspects like health and a world of peace were developed. More importantly, More proposed the designs for streets and quality housing so as to achieve the required level of health in the society. More therefore developed a spatial model that transformed his theory from a dream to a concrete project.
His utopia was directed towards remote and inaccessible areas surrounded by fortifications. In the effort to achieve the egalitarian model of the society, More advocated for standard buildings (More, 2002). Orthogonal geometry and flat ground; given their designable and flexible nature, were favored in the place of complex design models. Moreover, empty spaces were preferred for such endeavors. Essentially, More created a state of falling-out from the traditional approaches of the society and planning to the application of technology especially regarding the planning of cities.
During the 2th century, many scholars took up the works of More alongside attracting political and economic thinkers. It was during this time that Marx criticized utopia based on its assumption that the society could be simply transformed, from a metaphysical outer space, to achieve a state of ‘goodness’; not that Marxism was against the achievement of such as radically transfigured society. Similarly, utopia was passed on to artistic agents such as science fiction. Urban designers and architects of the era also had their input regarding utopian cities.
The most famous of such projects; regarded as undoubtedly utopic, were those of Le Corbusier, Wright and Howard (Fishman, 1977). Although these utopias were not pejorative, they were imperative programs of action resultant from a critical reflection hence transcendent to prevailing circumstances; implementation of the program leading to breaking down of the societal status-quo. At a time when people thought that the achievement of an ideal world was at hand, such hopes were turned into despair.
The soviet regime transpired obstacles like censorship and despotism. The utopia that had gained roots was immediately challenged by the rise of USSR hence terror and oppression as opposed to the expectations of the people (Pinder, 2002). The society was then subjected to other aspects like acculturation instead of collectivism and the standardization of life. 3.0 Contemporary utopia in planning and theory Urban planning departments, at a contemporary perspective, rarely address utopia approaches in official programs.
It is therefore evident that there is insufficiency as far as the enthusiasm to comprehend the relationship existent between urban planning and utopian thinking. Arguments have been presented that this lack of enthusiasm can be traced to the previous failures of utopia; given that most utopian experiments did not succeed. While utopia uses spatial figures in defining cities, contemporary cities have no relationship whatsoever with preindustrial cities (Pinder, 2002). Moreover, following ubiquity of culture and media alongside technological advances, buildings can be erected anywhere; while discoveries have become easy.
While no further spaces are left undiscovered, technology is engulfing the previous duality of time and space existent in the utopian approach.
Read More