Tough weekend for U.S. infrastructure in the media

This weekend seemed to be a pretty tough weekend in the media for the infrastructure here in the U.S., or more specifically, our national will to improve and sustain our infrastructure.  The first blow was delivered when, on Saturday morning, I read a short article by Nathan Thornburgh in the July 14, 2008 issue of Time Magazine, Nation Building.  The focus of the article is the lack of progress in the rebuilding of ground zero where, now seven years later, "every part of the project is over budget and behind schedule."  His main point is that the problems at ground zero are symptoms of the broader problem when it comes to America's infrastructure in general.  He cites a recent U.S. Chamber of Commerce report which concludes that the U.S. transportation infrastructure is more vital than ever to the success of nearly every segment of the U.S. economy but that "business as usual" in terms of how we invest in our transportation infrastructure is simply indadequate to meet future demands.  The fact that the "Americans lose $9 billion in productivity from flight delays alone" was also mentioned.  He concludes this happy story by comparing the state of infrastructure in the U.S. with the explosion of new infrastructure and infrastructure investment (with the usual qualifications about China's political system) in terms of global competitiveness -- "The global economy rewards countries with the concentration and focus to build quickly and solidly."  This brief, but sobering, article ends with a fairly ominous quote:

"It's not too late for ground zero to be a showcase for American engineering, efficiency and ingenuity.  Anything less risks sending exactly the wrong message."

The next blow came when I sat down Sunday morning to read the New York Times.  There was a front page article by the Times' architecture critic, Nicolai Ouroussoff, titled In Changing Face of Beijing, a Look at the New China.  The article cited a number of the incredibly impressive, and sometimes controversial, architectural projects in and around Beijing.  The projects cited were the Beijing Capital Airport Terminal 3 (Foster+Partners used some Bentley technology for the conceptual design); the new National Theater near Tiananmen Square; the new headquarters building for the Chinese television authority, CCTV; the National Stadium (a.k.a. the Birds Nest) built for the Olympics; and the National Aquatics Center (also designed with the help of Bentley products).  Having just spent 8 days in Beijing a couple of months ago and seen most of these structures in person, I found the article very interesting.  You could immediately tell where the author was coming from by the opening paragraph:

"If Westerners feel dazed and confused upon exiting the plane at the new international airport terminal here, it's understandable. It's not just the grandeur of the space. It's the inescapable feeling that you're passing through a portal to another world, one whose fierce embrace of change has left Western nations in the dust."

Left "in the dust"?  Ouch!  He doesn't stop there however.  He concludes the article by pondering a bit about what it all means:

"It remains to be seen where this will lead. For centuries, architects have aspired to create buildings that enlighten or transform civilization, only to see them remain isolated splendors, with little impact on society at large. That may prove to be the case in China, too.   But there is no question that its role as a great laboratory for architectural ideas will endure for years to come. One wonders if the West will ever catch up." 

"[I]f the West will ever catch up."?? Ouch again. 

The final blow came on that Sunday afternoon when I was watching Fareed Zakaria's new show, GPS, on CNN.  At the end of the show, Fareed had a short segment about the anniversary of the start of construction of the Hoover Dam, which has long been a symbol of America's ability to do the big things.  He then went on to cite the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) infrastructure report card and the $1.6 trillion investment required just to bring our existing infrastructure into fully operational and safe conditions.  He also compared the investments in infrastructure as a percentage of GDP between the U.S. (2.4%), Europe (5.0%), and China (9.0%).  As in the case of the first two examples, the show was ended with a somber and sobering statement:

"Projects like the Hoover Dam will become symbols for an America that could once think big and build tall.  An America that is no more."

So, what kind of reaction should we Americans have?  Well, we could certainly get mad, beat our chests about how great the U.S. is.  Maybe we could come up with the infrastructure equivalent of "Freedom Fries."  Yeah, that'll show 'em.  We could get analytical and point out that the U.S. still has the largest GDP of any country, more airports, more miles of roadways, and even more miles a railways than any other country on earth.  We not only built the Hoover Dam, but the Golden Gate Bridge, the Empire State Building, and the Sears Tower.  Oh yeah, and we put a man on the moon and won the Cold War.  Okay, okay, they get it.  Unfortunately, none of these reactions addresses the problem.  Maybe we should just get busy.  I take the observations from these three media sources, not as criticisms or death knells, but as challenges -- challenges that we've risen to over and over in the past.  But make no mistake, rising to our infrastructure challenges and the multitude of interrelated challenges we face (e.g., energy, dependence on foreign oil, sustainability, etc.) will take enormous political will.  It's time we stop showering our political leadership (on both sides of the aisle) with low expectations.  It's time for the bully pulpit to be used for more than ideological platitudes, scapegoating and fear-mongering.  Given a challenge and a tangible, pragmatic plan to meet that challenge -- even a plan that requires sacrifice -- the American people will usually respond.  We should expect (and therefore elect) political leadership that will acknowledge and confront the challenges we face rather than they deny that problems exist; that will be honest about the true costs and ask us to make the sacrifices required to pay those costs rather pretending everything is painless; and rally the population with confidence and hope for their individual futures rather than fear of what might happen.  It's a tall order, but then it is time to think big and build tall.

"We should not, then, be hesitant about challenging man with a potential meaning for him to fulfill...What man actually needs is not a tensionless state but rather the striving and struggling for a worthwhile goal, a freely chosen task. What he needs is not the discharge of tension at any cost but the call of a potential meaning waiting to be fulfilled by him."
- Victor Frankl, 1946

 

Parents Comment Children
No Data