The costs of utopia: Brasilia, Johannesburg, and Moscow

Abstract

Could utopian ideology influence cities’ spatial structure to the point of overriding basic selforganizing principles that have been thought to be quasi universal? In this paper, I define utopian ideology as a doctrine that is imposed by a central or local government and that aims at reaching a future state of optimum permanent equilibrium. Under my definition, the theory of free markets is the opposite of an utopian ideology because, first, free markets are spontaneously created by individuals and firms and cannot be imposed by governments, and second, because free markets imply constant adjustment toward an ever changing state of equilibrium which cannot be known in advance. The main points developed in this paper are that (i) in some cases ideology could become the main determinant of urban shape, (ii) the spatial outcomes of opposite ideologies are often identical and (iii) Cities shaped by utopian ideologies impose a measurable cost affecting adversely the welfare of their inhabitants. While I concentrate on three extreme examples of ideologically shaped cities ”“ Brasilia, Johannesburg and Moscow ”“ I also show that milder cases of ideologies in cities like Curitiba (Parana, Brazil) and Portland (Oregon, USA) are having milder but not insignificant costs. I conclude that mild forms of utopian ideologies are still common in land use regulations, which in turn contribute to some inefficiencies and loss of welfare in many modern cities.