Staff Reports
In the world of politics and public service, project management is key. And when it comes to high-stakes projects, one would assume that hiring the right people is a crucial first step. However, recent revelations have called into question not only the management of certain projects but also the qualifications of those at the helm. With one project already grinding to a halt and five billion dollars over budget, it seems like the leadership behind the scenes is more suited for long-winded meetings than for actually getting things built.
Take Justin Garrett Moore, for example. Moore, who struts around with a collection of letters after his name like a peacock showing off its feathers, describes himself as a “transdisciplinary designer and urbanist.” While it sounds impressive, one has to wonder what it truly means in practical terms. The average person might find themselves scratching their heads, trying to visualize how his work in “equity” and “inclusion” translates to bricks and mortar. When it comes to getting right down to business—like pouring concrete or laying a solid foundation—one can’t help but think that Moore is more concerned with the decorative aspects of a project than the actual construction.
If his past performance is any indicator, hiring Moore was akin to letting a goldfish attempt to build a bridge. In his tenure overseeing projects like the Greenpoint-Williamsburg Waterfront in Brooklyn, there have been delays longer than a New York City subway wait. A staggering 16 years later, the project remains unfinished and has become a makeshift parking lot for the MTA! If this is what a “transdisciplinary” approach brings to the table, perhaps it’s time to dust off the traditional blueprint and start afresh.
Of course, Moore isn’t alone in the lineup of questionable hires. Then there’s Bruce Redmond Becker—a designer whose website has probably run out of room for all the lofty phrases stacked on his portfolio. Becker has made a name for himself promoting “transformative social and environmental value.” What does that even mean? In layman’s terms, it translates to government-subsidized housing projects that, while noble in intention, often falter in execution. Just because a building is eco-friendly doesn’t mean it’s a good idea when the utility bills skyrocket because of the reliance on electric heating, in a frenzy to avoid fossil fuels.
Next up on the hit parade of headscratchers is another interesting character—a woman whose appearance alone seems to personify liberalism. The director and CEO emeritus of a landscape architecture firm, she boasts a long list of projects, including contributions to the White House Rose Garden. While her accolades sound grand, one can’t help but wonder if she has ever laid a shovel to dirt in a real-world construction setting or if she’s spent too much time exchanging ideas over high-priced coffee in the trendiest cafes.
In the end, when one surveys this motley crew of project managers, it’s evident that a change is sorely needed. A project that’s five billion over budget and still non-existent calls for more than just a fancy resume filled with academic accolades and vague promises of social equity. What’s critical in building projects is practical experience, sound judgment, and a clear focus on getting the job done—not just pretty words or creative design essays. As the country watches these projects languish in red tape and empty promises, it’s high time that the emphasis shifts from the glittery titles to the hard hats needed to break ground. After all, a project that takes 16 years is hardly a project at all—more like an elaborate game of “hurry up and wait” while taxpayers foot the bill.
