After much deliberation and reading of other ideas I am still finding myself staring outside my porch door with a cup of coffee wondering what I could do to change Rutland. My answer strangely is nothing. I would love to plant trees that grow money, and pave a road that take me straight to the University without having to use highway 97 or Rutland road; these ideas however are highly unrealistic.
What I am trying to get at is as I read the articles presented within lectures examining all these different theories that strive for change, and I start to think of the possibility that there could be universal change. Change that could be presented to all major urban societies and in the end it affects them all in a positive manner. An idea, that as a whole, could not be affected by human’s or nature a like.
Much like Einstein strove to solve Unified Theory, as he chose to dismiss all claims of Qutaum mechanics, is it not possible to create a basic outline on how a city should be laid out encompassing, all natural terrain, the populations wants and needs, and human natures cruel emotions of greed and envy, all the while allowing the city to be self sustaining, and prosperous through exporting of its main industry.
It’s a wordy task, with no starting point. As a whole the checklist for the perfect urban scheme would be unfathomable, and this as a whole makes this thought an unrealistic venture. But what if it wasn’t. What if one could lay out the perfect city that could be implemented anywhere throughout the world? This then would be the creation of the true utopia.
Very interesting ideas…but i think it is very important in light of your point to to remember that Utopia as More coined the term, actually means No place. Having said that, it becomes increasingly clear, that such a concept as the perfect world or society, is actually unattainable or at least, has yet to be realized. Therefore it becomes clear that actually solving all of societies ills is a worthy task, but there have been many who have tried, whether exemplified by Howard’s Garden City or Milutin’s Sotsogorod all such attempts have failed. I do though as you often wonder what could be done to make Rutland a little bit better. Living here I have found that its municipal facilities are less than sub par. I would thus argue that the real way to generate change that would help the inhabitants of it, would be to do a community sensus in which its citizens identified the problems that permeated its construction. Another concept I would try to implement would be the installation of some sort of rail system, to not only connect Rutland, Glenmore, Winfield,the university and the various communities that are present surrounding Kelowna, but also to connect the entire Okanagan valley, from Vernon, through Kelowna, to Penticton.It would seem to me that such an idea would be especially useful for both economic development and municipal affairs. Anyways just my two cents. I certainly often wonder the same things as you concerning our Neighbourhood and what could be done to improve it.
I think what you are hoping for is tenuous at best. The utopia is a human ideal which attempts to transcend human problems; it is a human creation, however, and is necessarily bound by human limitations. We see this problem exemplified in Le Corbusier’s grands ensembles, where the massive is created in an attempt to satisfy the requirements of the individual. It is human nature that defies the collective solution to an individual problem. Attempts to satisfy the majority always neglect the individual. I don’t think that is a dichotomy that can be easily remedied by structural reform, simply because what is a utopia for one is not a utopia for all, and vice versa. I don’t think that a true utopia can be actualized without massive changes in individual ideology.
To andrewschneider,
I do hope this does not come off angry or offensive,
I was just wondering what ideology you believe that individuals, if the ideology even exists, would have to change to in order to make the “true Utopia a reality?
It definitely did not come across as angry or offensive, so no worries in that regard. I would imagine that human beings would need to be individually selfless in order for a true utopia to be achieved. I don’t think anyone would argue that is the case at the moment. I think you alluded to the paradox of the utopia in your original post when you gave examples of the money-growing trees and the road to the university. Money would cease to retain value if it grew on trees, and the road that ran straight to the university from your house would require the demolition of many families’ homes. In short, the utopia for you is not a utopia for everyone.
One of the most interesting things about Thomas More’s Utopia is that the people function adequately within its framework. He is very clear throughout the book, however, that the Utopians think differently than outsiders. They do not lust for individual power, or value gold or gems. There are competitions between neighbors to see who can grow the best garden, but no one is upset if they lose; rather, they are happy for the winner. A similar change would need to take place within every individual in order for a utopia to actually function.
I’m not saying it isn’t possible; I’m just saying it isn’t possible with humans, at least not the way they are right now. We are too quick to anger, and harbor too much jealousy and envy. We fight over land and what direction we face to pray. We oppress people for the colour of their skin or the genitals they were born with. We do horrible, horrible things to one another. We are imperfect creatures, so how could we be expected to act perfectly? A utopia is more than well laid out roads and appropriate distances between work and residence. Those are merely there to foster human interaction.
tl;dr: I don’t actually know how to create a utopia.
From Andrew’s comment, in my opinion, it seems that he is referring to the human nature of individuals. I mean this in a subjective sense, in that each individual has their own sense of of what they believe a true Utopia is. In making this Utopia a reality, each individual would have to agree and comprise to other ideas if they want to live with others, thus can it be a true Utopia? It is quite a pessimistic view; however one that has been proven to be true in the past experiences. One example of a disaster in trying to implement Utopian ideals discussed in class was Magnitogorsk. However I hope the future in urban planning could produce a basic outline for a city that could look beyond human greed and could still be self sustaining. I don’t think your argument is tenuous, more so a positive, refreshing idea of what could be.
Perhaps it is not possible to bring a utopia into existence – but don’t you think there is a role for utopian thinking in our society?