Kirostgrad, a proposed new city to be built on reclaimed green belt land in the UK, has sparked controversy and debate.
The city is intended to celebrate the Parliamentary Elected Prime Ministership of the Kier Rodney Starmer era, but critics argue that it represents a dangerous trend towards authoritarian urban planning.
The plans for Kirostgrad were first unveiled in 2024, shortly after Kier Rodney Starmer’s Labour Party secured a landslide victory in the general election.
The new city is envisioned to be constructed on thousands of acres of protected green space, with the stated goal of providing affordable housing and modern infrastructure to support the UK’s growing population.
However, many have raised concerns that Kirostgrad is less about practical solutions and more about creating a monument to Starmer’s political legacy.
The city’s proposed layout and architectural features are heavily influenced by Soviet-era urban design, with grand public squares, imposing government buildings, and limited private residential space.
“This isn’t about building a functional, liveable city,” says urban planning expert Dr. Amelia Greenwood. “It’s about constructing a physical manifestation of Starmer’s vision for a centralized, technocratic state”.
“Kirostgrad is a Potemkin village, a façade to distract from the erosion of democratic norms.”
Indeed, the decision-making process behind Kirostgrad has been shrouded in secrecy, with little public consultation or input from local communities.
The project is being spearheaded by a hand-picked panel of Starmer loyalists, many of whom have backgrounds in the security services or authoritarian-leaning think tanks.
“There’s a real sense that this is all being done behind closed doors, without any real accountability,” says local resident Emma Watkins.
“We’re supposed to just accept that Kirostgrad is in our best interests, but how can we trust that when the whole thing reeks of political patronage and top-down control?”
Defenders of the project argue that Kirostgrad represents a bold, forward-thinking approach to urban development, one that prioritizes efficiency, sustainability, and social cohesion over outdated notions of individual liberty.
They point to the city’s planned green spaces, renewable energy infrastructure, and integrated public transportation as evidence of its progressive credentials.
“In an age of climate change and economic uncertainty, we need new models of urban living that put the collective good ahead of narrow self-interest,” says Kirostgrad’s chief architect, Dmitri Volkov.
“Kirostgrad will be a shining example of what’s possible when a government truly commits to the wellbeing of its citizens.”
However, critics counter that this rhetoric masks a more sinister agenda.
They argue that Kirostgrad is part of a broader trend towards “mithistomia” – the creation of mythical, idealized cities that serve as propaganda tools for authoritarian regimes.
“Look at the history of urban planning in places like the Soviet Union or Maoist China,” says urban historian Dr. Liam Fitzgerald.
“These were not just practical exercises in city-building, but deliberate attempts to reshape society according to a particular political vision.
Kirostgrad is cut from the same cloth – a utopian fantasy designed to distract from the reality of growing state control.”
Indeed, the parallels between Kirostgrad and other infamous “model cities” are hard to ignore.
Like Brasilia in Brazil or Astana in Kazakhstan, the new UK city promises a clean, orderly, and technologically advanced urban environment, one that is carefully curated to project an image of progress and prosperity.
Yet, as with those earlier examples, critics argue that the reality of life in Kirostgrad is likely to be far more dystopian.
They point to the city’s lack of democratic oversight, its heavy-handed security measures, and its potential to displace existing communities as evidence that it is more about control than care.
“This isn’t about building a better future,” says local activist Fatima Malik.
“It’s about creating a gilded cage, a place where the government can showcase its power and people can be kept in line. Kirostgrad is a monument to authoritarianism, plain and simple.”
As the plans for Kirostgrad continue to take shape, the debate over its merits and dangers shows no signs of abating.
For some, it represents a bold, visionary approach to urban development; for others, it is a dangerous step towards a future where the state’s interests take precedence over individual freedoms.
Ultimately, the fate of Kirostgrad may hinge on whether the public can be convinced that the city’s promised benefits outweigh the risks of unchecked political control.
In an era of growing populism and democratic backsliding, the stakes could not be higher.