So I'm a city planner, an urban designer, former arts advocate, trained in architecture and art history, and I want to talk to you today not about design but about America and how America can be more economically resilient, how America can be healthier, and how America can be more environmentally sustainable. And I realize this is a global forum, but I think I need to talk about America because there is a history, in some places, not all, of American ideas being appropriated, being emulated, for better or for worse, around the world.
我是一名城市规划师和设计师 曾经的艺术倡导者 学过建筑设计和艺术史 但是我今天想聊的跟设计无关 我要跟大家聊聊美国 关于美国经济如何能够更加富有弹性 如何更健康 以及美国怎样可以 保持环境的可持续性 我知道这是一个全球性的论坛 不过我觉得我需要说一说美国 因为在历史上 在某些地方 美国的经验常被借鉴 被模仿,结果有好有坏 (这样的例子)全球都有
And the worst idea we've ever had is suburban sprawl. It's being emulated in many places as we speak. By suburban sprawl, I refer to the reorganization of the landscape and the creation of the landscape around the requirement of automobile use, and that the automobile that was once an instrument of freedom has become a gas-belching, time-wasting and life-threatening prosthetic device that many of us need just to, most Americans, in fact, need, just to live their daily lives. And there's an alternative. You know, we say, half the world is living in cities. Well, in America, that living in cities, for many of them, they're living in cities still where they're dependent on that automobile. And what I work for, and to do, is to make our cities more walkable. But I can't give design arguments for that that will have as much impact as the arguments that I've learned from the economists, the epidemiologists and the environmentalists. So these are the three arguments that I'm going to give you quickly today.
我知道的其中最坏的一个 便是郊区蔓延 (suburban sprawl) (译注:对于郊区范围没有止境大幅度扩张的现象) 它被很多地区借鉴和模仿 郊区蔓延,我指的是对景观道路建筑 进行重新规划和建设 以满足汽车使用的需要 汽车曾经是象征自由的工具 如今成了排放废气 浪费时间和威胁生命的 假肢设备 我们很多人依赖汽车 大多数美国人依赖汽车 仅是为了他们的日常生活而已 汽车其实并非不可替代 全世界有一半人在城市中生活 在美国,许多人 在城市里生活,却同样的 依赖他们的汽车 而我的工作目标 就是使城市变得适宜步行 但是我个人并没有 特别的设计主张 我只是学习了 来自于经济学家,流行病学家 和环境学家的设计方案 今天天我将会阐述 三个不同的设计论点
When I was growing up in the '70s, the typical American spent one tenth of their income, American family, on transportation. Since then, we've doubled the number of roads in America, and we now spend one fifth of our income on transportation. Working families, which are defined as earning between 20,000 and 50,000 dollars a year in America are spending more now on transportation than on housing, slightly more, because of this phenomenon called "drive till you qualify," finding homes further and further and further from the city centers and from their jobs, so that they're locked in this, two, three hours, four hours a day of commuting. And these are the neighborhoods, for example, in the Central Valley of California that weren't hurt when the housing bubble burst and when the price of gas went up; they were decimated. And in fact, these are many of the half-vacant communities that you see today. Imagine putting everything you have into your mortgage, it goes underwater, and you have to pay twice as much for all the driving that you're doing.
我生长于70年代 那时人们一般会把十分之一的收入 花在交通上 从那时起,我们的公路数量翻了一倍 而我们现在要把五分之一的收入 花在在交通上 劳动家庭,这里是指 年收入在两万至五万美元的 美国家庭 花在交通上的开支 甚至略微多于住房开销 这种现象被称为 “一直把车开到能买得起房的郊区” 家被安置在离市中心和工作 越来越远的地方 他们陷在了每天两个,三个 甚至四个小时的通勤上 例如,在加州的中央山谷中 有这么一些社区 在房产泡沫破碎和汽油价格上涨的冲击下 不仅仅是规模减小 而是彻底消亡了 事实上,你可以看到 有很多入住率不足一半的社区 想象一下你用所有的家当和贷款买了房 房价不断缩水,你却要花 是现在两倍的时间在开车上
So we know what it's done to our society and all the extra work we have to do to support our cars. What happens when a city decides it's going to set other priorities? And probably the best example we have here in America is Portland, Oregon. Portland made a bunch of decisions in the 1970s that began to distinguish it from almost every other American city. While most other cities were growing an undifferentiated spare tire of sprawl, they instituted an urban growth boundary. While most cities were reaming out their roads, removing parallel parking and trees in order to flow more traffic, they instituted a skinny streets program. And while most cities were investing in more roads and more highways, they actually invested in bicycling and in walking. And they spent 60 million dollars on bike facilities, which seems like a lot of money, but it was spent over about 30 years, so two million dollars a year -- not that much -- and half the price of the one cloverleaf that they decided to rebuild in that city. These changes and others like them changed the way that Portlanders live, and their vehicle-miles traveled per day, the amount that each person drives, actually peaked in 1996, has been dropping ever since, and they now drive 20 percent less than the rest of the country. The typical Portland citizen drives four miles less, and 11 minutes less per day than they did before. The economist Joe Cortright did the math and he found out that those four miles plus those 11 minutes adds up to fully three and a half percent of all income earned in the region.
现在我们知道了这对于社会的影响 以及我们为了使用自己的汽车 需要花费的额外的代价. 如果一个城市将发展的重心, 从汽车上 转移到别的地方会是什么样子? 俄勒冈州的波特兰可能是目前 美国最好的一个例子 波特兰在1970年代做了一系列决定 这些决策逐渐地将这个城市 同其他的美国城市区别开来 当其他城市不断扩张 千篇一律地顺着轮胎印蔓延开来 他们制定了城市增长的边界 当大多数城市为了不断拓宽道路 移走平行车位和行道树 以增加车流量时 他们却开始将机动车道变窄 当大多数城市增加道路投资 建设高速路时,他们投资在 自行车路和人行道上 他们在自行车设施上投入了六千万美元 看起来是很多 但这是30年的总和 大约每年200万,其实并不多 只相当于他们决定要重建的 一条立交桥的开销的一半 这些变化改变了 波特兰民众的生活方式 他们的驾车里程 平均到每个人 在1996年达到峰值 从那以后便开始下降 同美国其他地区相比 他们开车频率少20% 一个典型的波特兰市民 与以前相比,每天少开车4英里 或是11分钟 经济学家 Joe Cortright 计算过 发现这四英里 加上这11分钟 加起来的总和约占 当地居民收入的3.5%
So if they're not spending that money on driving -- and by the way, 85 percent of the money we spend on driving leaves the local economy -- if they're not spending that money on driving, what are they spending it on? Well, Portland is reputed to have the most roof racks per capita, the most independent bookstores per capita, the most strip clubs per capita. These are all exaggerations, slight exaggerations of a fundamental truth, which is Portlanders spend a lot more on recreation of all kinds than the rest of America. Actually, Oregonians spend more on alcohol than most other states, which may be a good thing or a bad thing, but it makes you glad they're driving less.
如果他们不把这些钱花在开车上 顺便说一下,花在开车上的钱 只有15%会贡献给本地经济 如果他们不把钱花在开车上 他们会花在哪里呢? 从人均占有量上看, 波特兰有很多第一 人均拥有的车顶行李架是最多的, 人均拥有的书店是最多的, 连脱衣舞俱乐部数量都是最多的. 这些有一点点夸张, 或者夸大了 但波特兰人的确 在各种娱乐活动上的花费 多于美国其他地区 事实上,俄勒冈人在酒精饮料上的消费 也比其他州来的多 这可能是好事也可能是坏事 但是好在他们开车也比较少
(Laughter)
(笑声)
But actually, they're spending most of it in their homes, and home investment is about as local an investment as you can get. But there's a whole other Portland story, which isn't part of this calculus, which is that young, educated people have been moving to Portland in droves, so that between the last two censuses, they had a 50-percent increase in college-educated millennials, which is five times what you saw anywhere else in the country, or, I should say, of the national average.
实际上,他们将交通省下的钱大多花在了他们的家里 家居开支是最能 留在本地的消费 还有另一个的波特兰故事 并不在预料之中 那就是年轻的受过教育的人们 纷纷涌入波特兰 在过去两次人口普查之间 受过大学教育的人 增加了50% 这是其他所有地方的5倍 或者说是全国平均数的5倍
So on the one hand, a city saves money for its residents by being more walkable and more bikeable, but on the other hand, it also is the cool kind of city that people want to be in these days. So the best economic strategy you can have as a city is not the old way of trying to attract corporations and trying to have a biotech cluster or a medical cluster, or an aerospace cluster, but to become a place where people want to be. And millennials, certainly, these engines of entrepreneurship, 64 percent of whom decide first where they want to live, then they move there, then they look for a job, they will come to your city.
一方面,通过更适宜单车和步行的规划 一个城市可以帮其居民省钱 另一方面,这会使它成为一个很酷的 大家都喜欢搬来的城市 所以最好的经济策略 作为一个城市来说 不是想方设法吸引大的公司 努力拥有生物产业 或是医疗产业 又或是航天工业 而是变成一个大家喜欢生活的城市 有才华的年轻人,作为经济的发动机 他们中的64%会先决定 住在哪里 然后搬过去,再找工作 他们会来到你的城市
The health argument is a scary one, and you've probably heard part of this argument before. Again, back in the '70s, a lot's changed since then, back in the '70s, one in 10 Americans was obese. Now one out of three Americans is obese, and a second third of the population is overweight. Twenty-five percent of young men and 40 percent of young women are too heavy to enlist in our own military forces. According to the Center for Disease Control, fully one third of all children born after 2000 will get diabetes. We have the first generation of children in America who are predicted to live shorter lives than their parents.
下一个关于健康的论点有一点吓人 你可能已经听过其中的一部分 同样,回到70年代,很多已经发生改变 在70年代,10人中只有一人肥胖 现在3人中便有一人肥胖 三分之二的人群超重 25%的年轻男性 和40%的年轻女性因为体重过重 而达不到参军的要求 根据疾病控制中心的数据 三分之一的2000年后出生的孩子 将来会患上糖尿病 这是美国第一次,这一代的孩子 预期寿命要短于他们的父母
I believe that this American healthcare crisis that we've all heard about is an urban design crisis, and that the design of our cities lies at the cure. Because we've talked a long time about diet, and we know that diet impacts weight, and weight of course impacts health. But we've only started talking about inactivity, and how inactivity born of our landscape, inactivity that comes from the fact that we live in a place where there is no longer any such thing as a useful walk, is driving our weight up. And we finally have the studies, one in Britain called "Gluttony versus sloth" that tracked weight against diet and tracked weight against inactivity, and found a much higher, stronger correlation between the latter two. Dr. James Levine at, in this case, the aptly-named Mayo Clinic put his test subjects in electronic underwear, held their diet steady, and then started pumping the calories in. Some people gained weight, some people didn't gain weight. Expecting some metabolic or DNA factor at work, they were shocked to learn that the only difference between the subjects that they could figure out was the amount they were moving, and that in fact those who gained weight were sitting, on average, two hours more per day than those who didn't.
我相信这次美国的健康危机 就如我们刚刚提到的 其实是一个城市规划的危机 可我们的城市设计却仍保持固有的模式 我们讨论了太多次饮食 我们都知道饮食影响体重 体重当然会影响健康 但我们才刚刚开始重视缺乏运动 我们的城市布局使我们生来缺乏运动 缺乏运动的主因来自于我们生活在 一个缺少步行道路的城市 开车使我们越来越重 我们终于开始相关的研究 一个英国的叫做“暴食与懒惰”的项目 通过观察体重对应饮食 和体重对应运动的关系 发现了后者之间拥有 更加紧密的关系 James Levine医生在 恰如其名的蛋黄酱诊所 将测试仪器放置在电子内衣里 先保持稳定的饮食 然后开始增加卡路里的摄入 有些人体重增加 有些人体重没有增加 考虑到一些新陈代谢或基因的影响 他们吃惊地发现 他们唯一能够发现的区别 便是他们运动的多少 事实上那些体重增加的人 每天要比体重没有变化的人 多坐两个小时
So we have these studies that tie weight to inactivity, but even more, we now have studies that tie weight to where you live. Do you live in a more walkable city or do you live in a less walkable city, or where in your city do you live? In San Diego, they used Walk Score -- Walk Score rates every address in America and soon the world in terms of how walkable it is -- they used Walk Score to designate more walkable neighborhoods and less walkable neighborhoods. Well guess what? If you lived in a more walkable neighborhood, you were 35 percent likely to be overweight. If you lived in a less walkable neighborhood, you were 60 percent likely to be overweight. So we have study after study now that's tying where you live to your health, particularly as in America, the biggest health crisis we have is this one that's stemming from environmental-induced inactivity. And I learned a new word last week. They call these neighborhoods "obesageneric." I may have that wrong, but you get the idea.
这些研究把体重和 缺乏运动联系起来 我们还有研究把体重和居住地联系了起来 你是否生活在一个适宜步行的城市? 还是生活在一个不适宜步行的城市? 或者你生活在城市的哪个部分? 在圣迭戈,他们有种步行指数 步行指数给每个美国地址 很快会给全世界的地址打分 取决于它有多么适宜步行 他们通过步行指数指定适宜步行的社区 和不适宜步行的社区 猜猜发生了什么?如果你生活中适宜步行的社区 你会有35%的可能超重 但如果你生活在不适宜步行的社区 你将会有60%的可能超重 我们有越来越多的研究 将你生活在哪里 同你的健康联系起来 我们拥有的最大的健康危机便是 如何阻止这种由环境诱导的缺乏运动的现象 我上周学到了一个新词 他们叫这种社区 “肥胖社区” 我可能拼写不准,但你知道是什么意思
Now that's one thing, of course. Briefly mentioning, we have an asthma epidemic in this country. You probably haven't thought that much about it. Fourteen Americans die each day from asthma, three times what it was in the '90s, and it's almost all coming from car exhaust. American pollution does not come from factories anymore, it comes from tailpipes, and the amount that people are driving in your city, your urban VMT, is a good prediction of the asthma problems in your city.
现在,有一件事,当然 简短地被提到过,哮喘在这个国家 逐渐流行 你可能没有想过太多 每天有14个美国人死于哮喘 比90年代多了三倍 这几乎完全归结于汽车尾气的排放 美国的污染来源不再是工厂 而是来自于汽车的排气管 你的城市中开车的人数 以及车辆行驶里程能够很好的 推测你的城市的哮喘问题
And then finally, in terms of driving, there's the issue of the single-largest killer of healthy adults, and one of the largest killers of all people, is car crashes. And we take car crashes for granted. We figure it's a natural risk of being on the road. But in fact, here in America, 12 people out of every 100,000 die every year from car crashes. We're pretty safe here. Well, guess what? In England, it's seven per 100,000. It's Japan, it's four per 100,000. Do you know where it's three per 100,000? New York City. San Francisco, the same thing. Portland, the same thing. Oh, so cities make us safer because we're driving less? Tulsa: 14 per 100,000. Orlando: 20 per 100,000. It's not whether you're in the city or not, it's how is your city designed? Was it designed around cars or around people? Because if your city is designed around cars, it's really good at smashing them into each other.
最后一点, 由于汽车驾驶问题 引发的车祸, 已经成为(美国)健康成人的 最大死亡威胁, 同时也是(美国)公民 最大的死亡威胁之一. 我们认为车祸是不可避免的 把它当做开车在路上的 天然风险 事实上,在美国,每10万人中 每年有12个人 死于汽车事故 我们还是很安全的 可是在英格兰,十万人中只有7人 在日本,十万人中只有4人 你知不知道哪里是十万人中只有3人? 纽约市 旧金山,一样,波特兰,也一样 所以城市更加安全 因为我们更少开车? 萨尔塔:十万人中有14人 奥兰多:十万人中有20人 这并非取决于你是不是在城市中 而是你的城市是如何设计的 它是围绕车还是人来设计的? 因为你的城市是围绕车来设计的 那么它会很擅长于使汽车撞在一起
That's part of a much larger health argument.
这属于健康论点的一部分
Finally, the environmental argument is fascinating, because the environmentalists turned on a dime about 10 years ago. The environmental movement in America has historically been an anti-city movement from Jefferson on.
最后,这个环境论点相当有趣 因为环境学家们大约在10年之前 做了个急转弯 美国的环保运动 历史性地被作为反城市运动 从杰弗森开始
"Cities are pestilential to the health, to the liberties, to the morals of man. If we continue to pile upon ourselves in cities, as they do in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as they are in Europe and take to eating one another as they do there."
“城市是人类健康, 自由和道德的瘟疫。 如果我们继续将自己同欧洲那样 堆积在城市里,那么我们也会变得 如同欧洲那样堕落 如同他们那样吃掉彼此。”
He apparently had a sense of humor.
他很明显有一些幽默
And then the American environmental movement has been a classically Arcadian movement. To become more environmental, we move into the country, we commune with nature, we build suburbs. But, of course, we've seen what that does.
美国的环保运动 成为了经典的田园运动 为了变得更环保,我们搬到了乡村 我们同大自然交流,我们建设了郊区 但是,我们看到了这些的结果
The carbon mapping of America, where is the CO2 being emitted, for many years only hammered this argument in more strongly. If you look at any carbon map, because we map it per square mile, any carbon map of the U.S., it looks like a night sky satellite photo of the U.S., hottest in the cities, cooler in the suburbs, dark, peaceful in the countryside. Until some economists said, you know, is that the right way to measure CO2? There are only so many people in this country at any given time, and we can choose to live where perhaps we would have a lighter impact. And they said, let's measure CO2 per household, and when they did that, the maps just flipped, coolest in the center city, warmer in the suburbs, and red hot in these exurban "drive till you qualify" neighborhoods. So a fundamental shift, and now you have environmentalists and economists like Ed Glaeser saying we are a destructive species. If you love nature, the best thing you can do is stay the heck away from it, move to a city, and the denser the better, and the denser cities like Manhattan are the cities that perform the best. So the average Manhattanite is consuming gasoline at the rate the rest of the nation hasn't seen since the '20s, consuming half of the electricity of Dallas. But of course, we can do better. Canadian cities, they consume half the gasoline of American cities. European cities consume half as much again. So obviously, we can do better, and we want to do better, and we're all trying to be green.
美国的二氧化碳 排放的地图 很多年来 强烈敲打着这一论点 如果你看着碳排放地图,因为我们用平方英里作为单位 任何一张美国碳排放地图 看起来都像是美国的夜间卫星图 城市里最多,郊区少一些 还有完全干净的乡村 直到一些环境学家指出 这种测量二氧化碳的正确方式吗? 在一个时间段里一个国家的人口数量是一定的 我们可能可以选择生活在 我们对环境影响更小的地区 然后他们说,让我们来测量每家的碳排放量 当他们这么做的之后,碳排放地图彻底反了过来 市区最少,郊区更多 乡村那些 “一直把车开到能买得起房的郊区”的社区排放最多 所以这是一个根本的转变,我们现在有 Ed Glaeser这样的环境学家和经济学家 说我们是破坏性的物种 如果你热爱自然,你最应该做的是 离它远些 搬到城市,越密集越好 像曼哈顿这种约密集的城市 会表现越好 曼哈顿的人均汽油消耗量之少 在其他地区20年代以后便再也没有见到过 人均电力消耗仅是达拉斯的一半 但是当然,我们可以做的更好 加拿大城市的人均汽油消耗是美国城市的一半 欧洲城市消耗的是这一半的一半 所以很明显,我们可以做到更好 我们想做的更好,我们努力生活得更加绿色
My final argument in this topic is that I think we're trying to be green the wrong way, and I'm one of many people who believes that this focus on gadgets, on accessorizing -- What can I add to my house, what can I add to what I've already got to make my lifestyle more sustainable? -- has kind of dominated the discussion. So I'm not immune to this. My wife and I built a new house on an abandoned lot in Washington, D.C., and we did our best to clear the shelves of the sustainability store. We've got the solar photovoltaic system, solar hot water heater, dual-flush toilets, bamboo floors. A log burning in my German high-tech stove apparently, supposedly, contributes less carbon to the atmosphere than were it left alone to decompose in the forest. Yet all of these innovations -- That's what they said in the brochure. (Laughter) All of these innovations together contribute a fraction of what we contribute by living in a walkable neighborhood three blocks from a metro in the heart of a city. We've changed all our light bulbs to energy-savers, and you should do the same thing, but changing all your light bulbs to energy-savers saves as much energy in a year as moving to a walkable city does in a week.
我最后一个论点是 我们通往绿色的路走错了 我是这类人其中的一个 迷恋一些机械小玩意儿 喜欢各种装饰品 我可以给我的房屋加装什么 我可以在我现有的装备加些什么 以使我的生活方式更加绿色环保? 这些占据了几乎所有的讨论 所以我也不能对此免疫 我太太和我在华盛顿的废弃土地上 建造了一栋新房子 我们尽可能地买下了环保店 所有的东西 我们买了太阳能电池系统 太阳能热水器,双冲水马桶 竹地板 燃烧木头的德国高科技火炉 相对于丢弃在森林任其自我降解 应该能够减少对大气的 碳排放 所有这些创意 都被他们写在宣传手册里 (笑声) 但所有这些创意加起来 对环境的贡献是非常微小的 同生活在三个路口便能到达 通往市中心的地铁站的社区内相比 我们把所有的灯泡换成了节能型 你也同样应该这么做 但换掉所有的灯泡 一年所节省的能源 只相当于搬进步行社区一周的效果
And we don't want to have this argument. Politicians and marketers are afraid of marketing green as a "lifestyle choice." You don't want to tell Americans, God forbid, that they have to change their lifestyle. But what if lifestyle was really about quality of life and about perhaps something that we would all enjoy more, something that would be better than what we have right now?
但我们并不想宣传这样的论点 政治家和商人害怕 把绿色作为”生活方式之选“来宣传 他们不想告诉美国人,上帝保佑 你们必须改变生活方式 但如果生活方式真的是生活质量的体现 可能有一些东西我们会更加喜欢 一些东西比我们现有的更好
Well, the gold standard of quality of life rankings, it's called the Mercer Survey. You may have heard of it. They rank hundreds of nations worldwide according to 10 criteria that they believe add up to quality of life: health, economics, education, housing, you name it. There's six more. Short talk.
生活质量排名的黄金标准 被称作美世调查 你可能已经听说过 他们给全世界数百个国家排名 对他们认为跟生活质量相关的十个要素 进行评比:健康,经济,教育 住房, 等等 还有其他六个,但来不及说了
(Laughter)
(笑声)
And it's very interesting to see that the highest-ranking American city, Honolulu, number 28, is followed by kind of the usual suspects of Seattle and Boston and all walkable cities. The driving cities in the Sun Belt, the Dallases and the Phoenixes and, sorry, Atlanta, these cities are not appearing on the list. But who's doing even better? The Canadian cities like Vancouver, where again, they're burning half the fuel. And then it's usually won by cities where they speak German, like Dusseldorf or Vienna, where they're burning, again, half as much fuel. And you see this alignment, this strange alignment.
非常有趣的是 排名最高的美国城市是火奴鲁鲁 排在了28位,跟着的是预料中的 西雅图,波士顿等所有适宜步行的城市 阳光地带的驾车城市 达拉斯,凤凰城和亚特兰大 并没有出现在名单之中 那谁做得更好? 加拿大城市比如温哥华 再说一遍,他们只消耗我们一半的燃料 还有说德语的城市通常表现不错 像是杜塞尔多夫或维也纳 他们同样消耗我们一半的燃料 你看看这些排序,这些奇怪的排序
Is being more sustainble what gives you a higher quality of life? I would argue the same thing that makes you more sustainble is what gives you a higher quality of life, and that's living in a walkable neighborhood. So sustainability, which includes our wealth and our health may not be a direct function of our sustainability. But particularly here in America, we are polluting so much because we're throwing away our time and our money and our lives on the highway, then these two problems would seem to share the same solution, which is to make our cities more walkable.
都是关于环境的可持续性的 什么能够给你更高的生活质量? 我会说是那些能让你 可持续发展的东西 可以给你更高的生活质量 那就是生活在适宜步行的社区里 可持续发展,包含了我们的财富 和我们的健康 可能不是一道直接的函数 但尤其是在美国 我们制造了太多污染 因为我们把我们的时间,金钱 和生活浪费在高速路上 这两个问题有一个共同的解决方法 那就是使我们的城市 更加适宜步行
Doing so isn't easy, but it can be done, it has been done, and it's being done now in more than a few cities, around the globe and in our country. I take some solace from Winston Churchill, who put it this way: "The Americans can be counted on to do the right thing once they have exhausted the alternatives." (Laughter)
这并不容易,但一定可行 也曾经被实现过 在世界上和我们国家的 多个城市实现过 我想从丘吉尔得到一些安慰 他这么说 美国人可以被指望 做正确的事情 但是仅当他们别无他法时.(笑声)
Thank you.
谢谢
(Applause)
(鼓掌)