‘Infrastructural Optimism’ – The Source

I coined the phrase “infrastructure optimism” in a 2009 article in the Places Journal. What was the focus of that piece?

In the aftermath of a disaster, rebuilding infrastructure can be a powerful morale-builder and a signal of collective optimism — as researchers like Kevin Rosario have pointed out. After September 11^y The attacks, the rapid resumption of public transit in lower Manhattan, and eventually the promise of a gleaming new Calatrava transit hub, signal the city’s resilience—not just bouncing, but bouncing back. straight ahead.

After Hurricane Katrina, I was looking at how to fix I-10 over Lake Pontchartrain, a nationally economic channel, ahead of schedule, while social service and public transportation systems serving low-income residents nearby had been out of order for years. Infrastructure investment has been unfortunately uneven – and so has the distribution of optimism.

How do you define optimism?

Optimism is simply the belief in a better future. There is a difference between personal optimism and collective optimism. Much personal optimism comes from childhood, and the support we get from family, mentors, teachers and social circles. If we are told every day that our prospects are bright, we tend to believe it.

Collective optimism is the idea that Association A better future is on the horizon. According to cultural researcher Oliver Bennett, this comes in part from belief in our decision-making systems — in our government, our voting processes and the fairness of our laws. It’s a key feature in driving large, even multi-generational projects forward. Few people are willing to devote long periods of their lives to something they don’t believe in or to systems they believe treat them unfairly.

How do you know the infrastructure?

I say infrastructure includes the systems that support our quality of life.

I am an architect, planner, and urban designer and tend to focus on the built environment: buildings, highways, sewers, and other physical systems. But these systems also influence and are affected by social, economic and financial systems. You can’t talk about access to health care without talking about transportation networks.

So the edges get blurry, and sometimes people argue that practically anything can be infrastructure. I don’t think this is true either. The food is a wonderful example. There are a lot of systems – water, soil, transport – that support food production. There is food infrastructure, infrastructure From Food, but I’m not sure that means that food itself is an infrastructure.

Despite its Latin roots, “infrastructure” is a 19th century French word that migrated into the English language around the time of World War II. She notes that it began replacing “public works” in common use in the early 1980s. What is the significance of this transformation?

Infrastructure is logistical and tactical. Its highest mission is often single-functional competence, rather than human expertise or other forms of accountability. Its operations are often hidden from public view, which can mask resource usage.

Public Works are social and collective actions, as well as being intrepid and proactive. During the Great Depression, federal programs such as the Works Progress Administration (WPA) responded to unemployment with highly visible public works—parks, schools, and post offices, but also graphic design, fashion, and photography. In addition to providing systems that support quality of life, it has built morale and reflected a sense of collective ownership and identity.

Infrastructure has come to mean modern engineering competence. Highways are perhaps the best example. How do we pass the most cars at the fastest speeds and with the fewest obstacles? But this goal does not create a true public sphere, and it reinforces some biases. What is desirable for cars may not be desirable in neighborhoods. It also typically excludes the interventions of architects, landscape architects, and other designers concerned with environmental experience, aesthetics, and performance.

The Investment and Jobs in Infrastructure Act became law recently. What was missing from the discussion about this bill?

An admission that we’re only paying back 75 years of deferred maintenance!

Yes, it’s a large sum of money, which is what we really need, and given our political dysfunction, surprisingly anything would pass. But this is not WPA. It’s not a big group vision. Most of the money will be distributed to the states, which will largely make their own decisions. The Rebuilding Better Act, which is still before Congress, may be closer — if passed.

Another thing we continue to do is to segment the infrastructure. Roads here, water there, waste and energy elsewhere. But these things are interconnected and interdependent. Transporting water requires energy, and water needs to generate energy. If we think more symbiotically, and really think about the entire life cycle of a project, we will change the cost equation completely.

Right now, who is doing a good job with infrastructure?

I interviewed Deborah Weintraub, a deputy city architect in Los Angeles, about replacing the $580 million Sixth Street Viaduct. This project—which also includes a 12-acre garden, amphitheater, and water harvester—is the result of a two-stage design competition, meaning it was born from a more innovative model than most contemporary bridges. The design was co-led by an architect and engineer and brings together more than half a dozen city, state and federal agencies, from metro to fish and wildlife.

These types of collaborations help solve traditional silos. Deborah herself always asks interesting questions such as: “When we dig a sewage line, why not also put in infrastructure for harvesting green water?” “Why not also plant trees and replace impermeable roofs with permeable ones?”

For me, this is the next generation of infrastructure. If you’re not planning for 50 or 100 years, if you’re not thinking about multi-functionality and infrastructure symbiosis, you’re just wasting resources.

You highlight the benefits of “tactical urbanism” on a small scale. What was the “Battle for Times Square”?

Former New York Transportation Commissioner Janet Sadiq Khan realized that one way to change the system was to change the process. In Times Square, I used paint and $10 beach chairs to create a temporary pedestrian-only area. Companies were worried about losing customers and revenue, but that didn’t happen. exactly the contrary. The project was a huge success and led to a permanent redesign and a new plaza by Snøhetta.

Sadiq Khan also tested and eventually added dozens of small parks and hundreds of miles of bike lanes to the city. Lots of things worked, and some didn’t, but we now have an index of case studies and a methodology for broader trials. Her approach has also influenced a new generation of street design manuals, which replace the old, strict guidelines prevalent on automobiles.

Has COVID-19 made cities more willing to try design interventions?

definitely. Lots of parking lanes have become outdoor places to eat and drink. In some cities – Portland, San Francisco, St. Louis – I think these changes are continuing. In St. Louis, we have also temporarily closed large parts of Forest Park and Tower Grove Park to vehicular traffic. It was full of people walking, running, snowboarding and biking!

In places like New York, the use of car-reserving services — which are usually ubiquitous — has fallen and the demand for bike sharing and purchases has risen dramatically. Working from home continues to gain popularity, and office vacancies continue to rise. Real change is coming. However, we are notoriously bad at building resilient and adaptable infrastructure.

You helped organize the WPA 2.0 National Contest. What are your thoughts on the Green New Deal?

The Green New Deal (GND) is under fire from all sides. It’s too big, too small, too ambitious, and it’s not going to happen. But WPA was also ambitious. It happened because there was political will and a shared sense of where we should go. In a way, this entire project was about building national morale.

At WashU, a few faculty members participated in the Green New Deal Superstudio, so we had many conversations about the possibility of designers being involved in the goals of GND. For me, the important thing about the Green New Deal—in addition to its explicit affirmation of the true effects of climate change—is that it explicitly acknowledges the interdependence of environmental and social challenges, and thus the interdependence of their solutions. Housing, food security, sea level rise, jobs, energy production – these things are all interconnected.

I wonder what would have happened if the Green New Deal had been introduced simultaneously without such massive political divisions. Not that it will be easy at all. Big change always requires a leap.

So, how is your level of optimism these days?

I did this research and wrote this book over three presidential administrations. When I finished, I joked that my optimism had waned and waned depending on the election results.

But in fact, as I said in the introduction, I came to believe that optimism is not a pendulum, it is a self-perpetuating renewable resource. And that will really help decide our future.