The utopian visions rejected aspects of contemporary cities yet insisted on the need to imagine and strive for better urban futures. The hellish conditions of the time were often the spur to seek alternatives. Indeed, it was within those hellish conditions that they sought the seeds of better worlds. Even if one is highly critical of some of these visions,  one is surely struck by an obvious question: what happened to the utopian energy that they embodied earlier in the twentieth cen../MORE

/BACK
The utopian visions rejected aspects of contemporary cities yet insisted on the need to imagine and strive for better urban futures. The hellish conditions of the time were often the spur to seek alternatives. Indeed, it was within those hellish conditions that they sought the seeds of better worlds. Even if one is highly critical of some of these visions,  one is surely struck by an obvious question: what happened to the utopian energy that they embodied earlier in the twentieth century? At a time now when there’s been such a widespread retreat from any kind of utopianism, what’s become of their cities of hope?Attempts to construct perfect societies are viewed as inherently repressive, even totalitarian. It’s not entirely unjustified since there have, of course, been many murderous regimes that have justified their actions in the name of a utopia to come, not to mention a long history of failed urban utopias that have frequently been repressive and authoritarian in their actually existing forms. But the problem is not inherent to utopianism, only to certain forms it has taken. The utopian spirit can’t be so reduced. Your question points to other ways of conceiving utopianism, as something that is open, joyful, and about seeking other possibilities within the present. This isn’t about a blueprint plan in which the future is mapped out in advance, but about seeking what might be yet is repressed in the present. (from Pinter interview in Bad Subjects)