Utopias of the 21st century?

I've recently watched NBC/Peacock's adaptation of Brave New World, turned into a 10 episode season, and I've found myself actually liking some aspects of the society. When I was going through the reviews, I also remember reading that the society created is repressive as opposed to oppressive. Repress emotions, fears, doubts, etc, individually childhood "conditioning", through medication and orgies resulting in everyone being a numb and functioning member of society, with peers being the best and actually only police. Is this that different from Orwellian oppressive regimes where, still, every single move is controlled?

Growing up and reading both Brave New World and 1984 more than 10 years ago, I remember being terrified by the kind of world portrayed by Orwell, yet Huxley's world seemed much more benign in comparison. Upon revisiting these thoughts after watching the series I can see why - it is exactly where we are headed! Voluntary repression through endless attention grabbing distraction, where we are turned into numbers and statistics for understanding consumption behaviours for profit purposes.

Yet, there is something fascinating about such an orderly world, with no vehicles, no police, no chaos caused by ad-hoc building, no traffic jams, no food shortage, no air pollution, and most importantly no aesthetic pollution. It led me to revisit some of the initial Italian Futurism no Leninist Soviet Constructivism ideas (the ones before Stalin turned the Soviet Union into 1984). In these urban and architectural ideas, one can find the inherent understanding that the design can serve a higher purpose, become an ordering mechanism for city planning, for letting society flourish. There is always a thin line into overreaching, but if better order can be created through overreaching some freedoms in order to create urban experiences that enrich all residents' lives, isn't that worth trying?

Of course we have also tried new ways of building huge post-war neighbourhoods that showed us that that type of top-down thinking isn't compatible with the actual societal requirements and needs, as many of these neighbourhoods became blighted with crime and anti-social behaviour.

I suppose the types of top down megaprojects only work in Huxley's world because society there has been conditioned to accept them.

There is however one example, that seems to have created a top-down utopia in the middle of a hectic and historic city - The Barbican estate in the City of London. Designed in an area destroyed by the Blitz during WW2, it created an island paradise. A mega project by any standards, it differed significantly compared to most run-down, and now demolished brutalist mega project due to the social make up of the project - it was not designed for social housing and it sits in primary urban area of the city. This fact makes up one part of the puzzling success of the Estate, as it is absolutist, with complete vehicular and pedestrian segregation. Yet it is so complete, that it is difficult to modify or expand parts of the complex. It reminds me of the architecture portrayed in the TV series Brave New World - brutal, highly textured concrete backdrop to a utopian idea.

Could the Barbican's approach be replicated today? Capitalism has grown exponentially since the times of post-war government-led expansion programmes. Today, government spending and ambitions have hindered and private developers have picked up the job of building mega projects. Hudson Yards is perhaps the closest modern development that approaches the scale of the Barbican. Yet, it couldn't be any different. Whereas the architecture in the barbican is beautiful yet uniform to serve as a backdrop to human activities, the buildings at Hudson Yards want to shout about being the newest glass towers with the most unique massing shapes. In Hudson Yards the primary factor of the public spaces is small breathing area to appreciate in apparent awe the project's towers.

To have project like the Barbican appear today, the conditions that led to conception of the project would need to be similar - post-war/post-pandemic/or post-disaster government spending  and willingness be bold in both spending and ambitions. Judging on where governments are heading, it doesn't seem like there would be another opportunity any time soon.

Next door to the Hudson Yards, the Highline portrays another take to develop a utopia-like development that can coexist with our current world. A simple repurposed disused elevated train tracks transformed into a linear park, an experience free of attention grabbing retail frontages and video screen advertisements. The highline created a renaissance for the area that spurred redevelopment of the meatpacking district into boutique residences, hotels and restaurants. The success of the highlane climaxed with the Hudson Yards, as it is now a spinal cord to development of something larger, less boutique and more mainstream Manhattan, legitimised by a cultural centre and a sculptural stair to nowhere. Yet, if a spine can generate reorganisation of public activities that takes into account an elevated line, then perhaps the separation between streets and pedestrian pathways envisioned during the first half of the 20th century may actually be useful for more cities to adapt.

Linearity with potential for redevelopment exists nearly everywhere in the form of abandoned elevated railways, overly ambitious boulevards with unused green spaces, canals, and spaces cutting through the urban fabric.

So how can the activator linear parks create a new network for pedestrian friendly "utopias" whilst encouraging further investment in building with respect to both the usual street front and the pedestrianised segregated areas? We need to step back from small development and generate large visions for neighbourhoods, districts, and cities, with urban spaces connecting into alternative networks with every new development or repurposing linking to these areas.