Are Liberal Concerns Extending U.S. Wars Overseas and Boosting Budget Deficits?

 
 

 

Perhaps the saddest part of the tale of deceit by Greg Mortenson, author of Three Cups of Deceit, is not that he stole money from his charity, lied about his charming story of being nursed back to health and didn't buid the schools he claimed to have built.

The saddest part of the story is that he made us believe we could win the cultural war in Afghanistan if only we would do good works like build schools. He played on our sentiments, in particular, by insisting we could change the nation's culture by educating its young girls.

Every U.S. soldier in Afghanistan was expected to read the book, and our mission changed from getting the bad guys to liberalizing Afghanistan.

It was a fool's errand that has cost us many lives and has contributed to many deaths and instability in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. It has also cost us a lot of money and mired us in a war that can't be won.

That is the danger of idealism. On person spins a pretty story about how we can change the world. A whole nation buys it. Now we are in trouble.

Nobody in America would disagree that it would be better if Afghanistan were to have a more tolerant culture. But you don't teach tolerance by occupying a country. You don't change a culture through force of arms. We should know that by now. Our pacification efforts in Vietnam only served to alienate more and more of the population while hardening our enemy. Once we left Vietnam, the government no longer had a reason to support such a militarist approach and the government today continues to move toward being a more open society.

Perhaps it will take much longer for societies like Afghanistan's to become more open, to protect women's rights than we would like. But that is not something we can accelerate through use of force. That change must come from within the culture.

Meanwhile, spending so much on defense weakens our ability to spend on important needs here at home.

We simply have to admit that we cannot be the policeman of the world. We don't have the resources or the authority, and we don't have much of a track record of success.

 

Creating an affordable, inclusive Puget Sound

Creating an affordable, inclusive Puget Sound

Making room for our growing population will require more density in urban areas as well as innovation in transportation and office use.
 
 

Seattle has an enviable problem. More and more people are moving to the Puget Sound, so many that, by some estimates, the region’s population could increase by one million residents by 2040. At the same time, Seattle is constrained geographically by water and hills. Our topography is scenic and beautiful, but it also makes it difficult to build new housing.

Further complicating matters, approximately 65 percent of Seattle’s land area is zoned for single-family residences. The hourglass shape of Seattle, at its widest point—between Ballard and Magnuson Park, along 65th Street—is zoned for the lowest density. Meanwhile, the area zoned for the densest development—downtown—is narrowest and where land is most scarce.

Water, land and zoning regulations: these are the facts. If population trends continue, how will people live in our city? As Seattle densifies, how can design provide a more humane environment and housing that all residents can afford? These are some of the questions I’m interested to explore at a panel discussion on October 5, “Seattle 2040: Where Will All the People Live?” at NBBJ’s Seattle office.

 

As an architect, I’m particularly interested in how we might insert greater density, for people of all incomes, into our existing street network including the single-family areas that constitute such a high proportion of Seattle. Mother-in-law apartments, residential units over garages, duplexes and townhouses are just a few options. Done right, we could increase density and affordability without dramatically changing the character of those neighborhoods.

This November a major ballot initiative, Sound Transit 3, could raise billions of dollars to expand light rail. If that happens, it would substantially increase the number of transit-oriented centers in our region, which would lessen the impact of building because we could spread it across more light rail stations.

There are other options. We could look at reusing and densifying public rights-of-way. High-rises like the “no-shadow tower” could mitigate the impacts of tall building on the urban environment. Or driverless cars might create a new transportation system in the next 25 years that fundamentally changes how we get around and where to encourage development.

If you think about the design of office space, 25 years ago, a majority had a private office with limited public amenities; now office space is moving in the other direction, asking people to have less personal space at their desk, but having access to a wider range of shared amenities. I almost think we need a similar approach whereby people move from large single-family houses to smaller homes or apartments. The key to making this work is to have access to more shared, semi-private amenities or nearby public open space.

Some of the issues Seattle faces also challenge many other U.S. cities, but these challenges cannot be solved by design firms single-handedly. A city’s growth affects everyone, young and old, rich and poor, newcomers and long-time residents. We are in this together, and it will require everyone to bring about our shared future. 

David Yuan, AIA, LEED AP, is a partner at global architecture and design firm NBBJ.