What is Infrastructure?
Who will you meet?
Cities are innovating, companies are pivoting, and start-ups are growing. Like you, every urban practitioner has a remarkable story of insight and challenge from the past year.
Meet these peers and discuss the future of cities in the new Meeting of the Minds Executive Cohort Program. Replace boring virtual summits with facilitated, online, small-group discussions where you can make real connections with extraordinary, like-minded people.
Times change and the language people speak change with them. The word “infrastructure” is bandied about a lot now, and the concept is a useful one. It’s generally used to describe the physical systems that hold us together and underlie our economy and ways of life.
Believe it or not though, the word is a relatively new one, not being used much even among professionals before the 1980s, according to scholars. It was before that time a term mostly used by the military to describe essential installations. It gradually crept into first professional and then public discourse.
Although I like its meaning, I don’t much like it as a word because it’s jargony and what I would call high falutin’. I like better the older term, “public works.” Another nice term you come across in older writing is “internal improvements.” You see that a lot in early history about the United States, as the founders discussed how and whether to build things like canals and roadways
As far as I can tell, we label as “infrastructure” the essential systems we do collectively, in common. It’s roads, bridges, water works and transit lines that are built and paid for by the public. Stepping back a bit, it’s also the private systems that are built with public help and oversight, particularly power and telephone lines.
Stepping back a bit further, I think it’s fair to describe as “infrastructure” our educational systems and legal systems. These our essential systems as well that we do in common.
And here’s the big rub: why not talk more openly about what is the proper and best design of all these essential infrastructure systems? Because they can vary.
That’s what I do in this new book of mine, The Surprising Design of Market Economies, that came out in September. I talk about how all these essential systems were built up, and try to start a conversation about how we can build them differently. I talk about the interesting history of corporations and intellectual property, as well as transportation and many services we take utterly for granted, such as policing. Did you know that paid professional police forces were largely unknown in cities before about 1850? Adopting them was preceded by a long and healthy public debate as to whether they fit with a democracy.
If you care about cities, or just about public life, it’s good to understand these essential systems, and to realize that the way we build them is up to us.
I’m going to talk about my new book in San Jose at 6:30 pm, Nov. 27th at the urban planning group SPUR. Love to see you there. You can get information about it here.
I’ve been talking about the ideas from my new book in several publications. You can read an op-ed I had about National Corporations in The New York Times, and one about public works in Bloomberg View, and another in Bloomberg View about why there’s no such thing as a free market.
Leave your comment below, or reply to others.
Please note that this comment section is for thoughtful, on-topic discussions. Admin approval is required for all comments. Your comment may be edited if it contains grammatical errors. Low effort, self-promotional, or impolite comments will be deleted.
Read more from MeetingoftheMinds.org
Spotlighting innovations in urban sustainability and connected technology
People seem frequently to assume that the terms “sustainability” and “resilience” are synonyms, an impression reinforced by the frequent use of the term “climate resilience”, which seems to enmesh both concepts firmly. In fact, while they frequently overlap, and indeed with good policy and planning reinforce one another, they are not the same. This article picks them apart to understand where one ends and the other begins, and where the “sweet spot” lies in achieving mutual reinforcement to the benefit of disaster risk reduction (DRR).
As extreme weather conditions become the new normal—from floods in Baton Rouge and Venice to wildfires in California, we need to clean and save stormwater for future use while protecting communities from flooding and exposure to contaminated water. Changing how we manage stormwater has the potential to preserve access to water for future generations; prevent unnecessary illnesses, injuries, and damage to communities; and increase investments in green, climate-resilient infrastructure, with a focus on communities where these kinds of investments are most needed.
A few years ago, I worked with some ARISE-US members to carry out a survey of small businesses in post-Katrina New Orleans of disaster risk reduction (DRR) awareness. One theme stood out to me more than any other. The businesses that had lived through Katrina and survived well understood the need to be prepared and to have continuity plans. Those that were new since Katrina all tended to have the view that, to paraphrase, “well, government (city, state, federal…) will take care of things”.
While the experience after Katrina, of all disasters, should be enough to show anyone in the US that there are limits on what government can do, it does raise the question, of what could and should public and private sectors expect of one another?