As we celebrate Palladium’s 60th anniversary, we sat down with leaders from across our business and our GISI Consulting Group sister companies to look ahead sixty years. We asked them what their industry would look like and what they hoped to see. When it came to infrastructure, we spoke with our team who shared why the infrastructure of 2085 must go hand-in-hand with sustainability. 

When Hurricane Maria struck Puerto Rico in 2017, the devastation wasn’t just from wind and rain—it was from the collapse of critical infrastructure. Roads washed out, power grids failed, and communication systems went dark, leaving communities isolated for weeks. That crisis underscored a truth that will only grow more urgent over the next 60 years: infrastructure is the backbone of resilience. It powers economies, connects people, and determines how societies withstand shocks—from climate disasters to geopolitical upheaval.

So, what does “good” infrastructure look like in 2085? And what decisions must we make today to get there?

“Infrastructure needs to be resilient, flexible, inclusive and sustainable to meet the needs of the future,” says Brad Richardson, CEO of Palladium Infrastructure. That means designing for multiple climate scenarios, embedding adaptability into every project, and ensuring that systems serve all communities—not just the wealthiest or most connected. Richardson warns that failing to act now risks a grim alternative: “If we don’t rapidly address climate change and inequity, then we will only have a future where we are fighting over precious resources and bunkering down for the wars that will ensue.”

He says that shift in priorities is already underway. “There is a big focus on two things—defence and energy—as the climate change debate gets overrun by the cost of living and national security.”

The resulting push prioritises foundational resilience: “National security, airports and mass transport, data centres, sub-sea cables, satellite communications, and energy (not just renewables),” alongside “protection from climate change—acknowledging we are not stopping it fast enough.” In practice, that means building networks that can withstand disruption and support continuity of critical services, while accelerating a cleaner, more abundant energy system that enables adaptation at scale.

But resilience alone isn’t enough.

According to Richardson, the infrastructure sector must move quickly to “support our clients to find a pathway through the current disruption, define priorities, and make decisions around where best to spend stretched budgets.”

That includes designing against multiple concurrent climate scenarios, investing in materials and methods that cut embedded carbon, and using technology to activate circular economies.

“Innovations in construction materials and build methodologies could significantly reduce the impact of construction on our natural environment. In addition, technology can support the ability to tap into circular economies and clever management of waste.”

Co-design with communities is non-negotiable for infrastructure that endures. He points to projects such as Port Vila Central Police Station, where “creating informal community gathering spaces close to functional buildings” made the facility more approachable and used. “The best design outcomes are co-designed with the local community to build in key culturally responsive elements,” he says. The cost of skipping that step can be severe, ranging from underutilised assets to outright rejection, while the upside is transformative.

“In the best case the facility is utilised as an important and positive addition to the community, sustainable, inclusive, and beyond.”

As climate shocks intensify, designing for complex compounding events must become more standard practice. Richardson argues for a risk-based approach that sets design parameters across scenarios and embraces new paradigms:

“Facilities designed to flood, rather than raising everything up. Structures designed to fail safely and be rebuilt easily. Relocatable structures. Small, efficient and cleverly designed modular spaces.” He adds, “Clean and abundant energy is going to be a critical driver of everything—how quickly we can adapt will determine how much we have to adapt.”

In humanitarian contexts, speed, flexibility, and local capability are the difference between disruption and disaster. “Modular is king—faster to build, with less reliance on stretched local supply chains,” says Richardson, while acknowledging the trade-off: modular builds can limit development opportunities for local labour. The balance, he suggests, is an honest conversation about “pros and cons around modular versus built in situ”—speed and quality control versus longer-term capacity building. In addition, pre-positioned infrastructure, equipment, and training in disaster-prone areas “would deliver more effective responses,” and that “flexible modular facilities that can be adapted in times of disaster” are essential.

To reduce inequities, change must start upstream: “Policies and funding decisions by governments,” followed by feasibility studies that “appropriately address community needs,” and inclusive, considered design. On financing and governance, Richardson favours models like build–own–operate that “partner with local communities.” But he cautions that today’s models too often “fail to commit long-term funding to operations and maintenance,” undermining viability; the solution is co-designed, community-owned infrastructure with operations and management baked in from the start.

As digital systems advance, maintaining the primacy of people is critical. “AI can drive efficiencies in delivery; however it cannot replace engagement and co-design with local community,” he notes. The path forward is both/and: use AI, IoT, and smart grids to optimise performance and reduce waste, while safeguarding traditional knowledge systems through genuine, ongoing listening and participation. “Human interaction and ‘listening’ to community needs still remains at the heart of delivering well considered community infrastructure.”

Finally, international development organisations have a clear mandate: “Partnering with local communities and building capability is what we do best… the journey is just as important as the outcome,” says Richardson. In 2085’s best case, that journey delivers infrastructure that is climate-smart, socially grounded, financially durable, and technologically enabled—designed with people, for people, and resilient enough to hold fast through whatever comes next.