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.
我是都市計劃師、城市設計師 以前是藝術倡導者 學過建築和藝術史 我今天要談的不是設計 而是美國 美國的經濟如何能更強韌 美國怎樣才會更健康 美國的環境 怎樣才能永續 我明白這是全球論壇 但我認為需要談談美國 因為歷史告訴我們 世界有些地方 美國人的觀念無論是好是壞 會被竊用、被仿效 這種現象舉世可見
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.
我們最壞的點子 是郊區的擴展 此刻很多城市正在仿效 我所謂郊區擴展,是指重整地景 或是建造地景 完全以汽車的使用需求為前提 汽車過去是解放人的工具 如今已變成消耗汽油 浪費時間、威脅生命 像義肢一樣的裝備 我們許多人 事實上大多數美國人 日常生活不可無車 但我們還是有選擇 全世界一半的人口住在城市 不過在美國 很多人即使住在城市 仍然依賴汽車 我的志業和工作目標 是讓城市更適宜步行 但我不打算談設計方面的論點 雖然這方面的衝擊也不小 我要談的論據來自 經濟學家、流行病學家 以及環保人士 這三方面的論據 今天我會很快地探討
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.
在我成長的1970年代 美國一般家庭所得的十分之一 花在交通上 如今我們的道路已經倍增 現在我們所得的五分之一 花在交通上 工薪家庭在美國的定義是 每年工作收入 兩萬至五萬美元的家庭 他們現在的交通花費 略高於住房費用 有個現象叫做「開到你買得起為止」 買得起的房子越來越偏遠 遠離市中心和上班的地方 所以他們必須花兩三個小時 甚至四個小時通勤 這種通勤社區的例子 就在加州的中央山谷 房市泡沫破滅的時候 以及油價上漲的時候 社區不只是受創,而是消亡 其實現在還看得到很多 半數是空屋的這種社區 想想看,錢都拿去付了房貸 房價卻低於房貸欠款 偏偏通勤的油費又倍增
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.
所以我們明白社會受到的衝擊 以及為了行車 必須做的額外付出 如果一個城市 不把汽車視為優先又會如何? 美國的最佳例子 可能是奧勒崗州的波特蘭 波特蘭在1970年代的一些決定 導致該城脫穎而出 美國其他城市鮮少匹敵 其他大多數城市 無計劃地向郊區蔓延 波特蘭則設立了都市成長的界限 其他大多數城市在擴張道路 移除路邊停車位和樹木 以便增加交通流量 波特蘭則訂定了窄路計劃 其他大多數城市在建設更多公路 和高速公路,波特蘭則把錢花在 自行車和步行方面 光是自行車設施 就花了他們六千萬 看起來很多錢 不過那是30年的總花費 平均每年兩百萬美元,也不算貴 他們重建一個立體交流道 要花一倍的錢 這些及其他類似的變更 改變了波特蘭人生活的方式 他們每天行車的里程數 每人開車的里程數 其實在1996年達到高峰 然後就持續下降 他們現在開車的里程數 比全國其他人少兩成 波特蘭一般市民開車 每天里程數比以前少了四哩 時間比以前少了11分鐘 經濟學家喬伊.柯爾賴特 (Joe Cortright) 做了計算 他發現這四哩 以及11分鐘的耗費 足足等於波特蘭地區 總所得的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.
從開車上面省下的錢 順便提一下,開車的花費 85%流出地方經濟 這些從開車上面省下的錢 波特蘭人花到哪去了? 波特蘭聞名的是 休閒用車頂置物架人均最多 獨立書店人均最多 脫衣舞俱樂部人均最多 我誇大了,稍微誇大了 但事實上波特蘭人 花在各種休閒活動的錢 遠超乎其他美國人 其實奧勒崗人喝酒的花費 高出其他州的居民 是福是禍不知道 但我們樂見他們較少開車
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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.
其實他們在住家上花的錢最多 還有什麼能比住家的投資 更能注入地方經濟? 但是波特蘭還有個現象 是經濟學家沒計算的 那就是受過教育的年輕人 成群結隊地搬到波特蘭 過去兩次人口普查之間 大學畢業的千禧世代 人口增加了五成 是其他地方的五倍 應該說是全國平均的五倍
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.
適宜步行和騎單車的城市 一方面替市民省錢 另一方面也是很酷的城市 是大家喜歡居住的地方 所以最佳經濟策略城市 對於城市而言 不是吸引企業那種老套 不是要建立生技園區 或醫療園區 或航太園區 而是要成為宜居的城市 無疑是創業引擎的千禧世代 64%會先決定 要住在哪裡 他們會先搬過去,再找工作 宜居的城市近悅遠來
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.
健康方面的論點就可怕了 你們可能略知一二 再回到和現在非常不同的1970年代 那個年代有一成的美國人過胖 如今美國人三分之一過胖 另外三分之一過重 二成五的年輕男性 以及四成的女性因為過重 不符合軍隊入伍標準 根據美國疾病管制中心 2000年以後出生的兒童 三成會得糖尿病 這一代的孩子會創下首例 平均壽命預計會低於上一代
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.
我認為這個美國的保健危機 我們都聽說過的危機 是城市設計的危機 城市設計才是治癒的關鍵 我們長期以來關注飲食 我們明白飲食影響體重 體重自然會影響健康 但是我們才開始探討少活動 以及造成少活動的地景環境 我們居住的環境 讓走路的功用大不如前 我們的體重因而上升 現在終於有了相關研究 英國的研究「好吃與懶做對比」 追蹤飲食和體重的關係 以及活動量和體重的關係 發現相關度更高的 是活動量和體重 詹姆斯.萊文 (James Levine) 醫生 現任職於馬約(Mayo,諧音美乃滋)醫學中心 他讓實驗對象穿上電子內衣 保持定量的飲食 然後開始增加熱量 有些人開始變重 有些人體重沒增加 研究人員預測是代謝或遺傳因素 結果卻令他們大吃一驚 他們找出的唯一差別因素 是實驗對象的活動量 體重增加的人 比沒增重者每天平均 多坐兩小時
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.
我們已有研究指出 體重和活動量有關,但不僅如此 有研究顯示,跟你住哪裡也有關 你是住在適宜步行的城市 還是住在走路不便的城市 在城市的哪個區也有關係 聖地牙哥使用了「步行分數」(Walk Score)—— 「步行分數」評估美國的每個住址 即將擴及全球 根據適宜步行的程度評分—— 聖地牙哥用「步行分數」區分鄰里 是否適宜步行 你知道嗎? 住在適合走路的鄰里 過重的機率是35% 住在較不適合走路的鄰里 過重的機率則是60% 已有接二連三的研究 指出居住的地點 和你的健康息息相關,尤其在美國 我們健康的最大危機 來自居住環境造成的活動量減少 我上週學到了一個新詞 這種鄰里叫做「肥胖區」(obesageneric) 我可能沒拼對,但意思你們懂
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.
有件事一定要提 簡而言之,就是氣喘病 在美國流行 你可能沒注意到 每天有14個美國人死於氣喘病 人數是1990年代的三倍 肇因幾乎全部來自汽車的廢氣 美國的污染不再來自工廠 而是來自汽車的排氣管 決定於城市人開車的多寡 城市開車的里程數 是氣喘問題的良好指標
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.
關於開車還有一件事 殺害健康成人的最大兇手 殺害所有人的最大兇手之一 就是車禍 我們對車禍習以為常 我們認為開車 自然會有風險 但事實上,每年在美國 十萬分之十二的人 死於車禍 我們相當安全 但你知道嗎?英國是十萬分之七 日本則是十萬分之四 你知道哪裡是十萬分之三嗎 紐約市 舊金山也一樣,波特蘭也如此 噢,城市比較安全 是因為城市人較少開車? 突沙市:十萬分之十四 奧蘭多:十萬分之二十 所以是否在城市不重要 城市的規劃才重要 規劃是以人還是以車為中心? 因為如果以車為中心 出車禍的機率很高
That's part of a much larger health argument.
這是健康論據的一小部分
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.
最後,環境方面的論據令人著迷 因為環保人士在十年前 快速轉變了立場 美國的環保運動 過去一直是反對城市的運動 可回溯至傑弗遜總統
"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."
「城市有害於健康 自由和人之道德 如果我們不斷聚集在城市 就像歐洲一樣,我們也將 像歐洲一樣腐敗 像他們一樣人吃人。」
He apparently had a sense of humor.
傑佛遜顯然頗有幽默感
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.
然後美國的環保運動 一直是正統的田園運動 為了保護環境,我們搬到鄉下 我們與自然交融,我們建立郊區 但是我們當然也看到了後果
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.
美國的碳地圖 標示了二氧化碳的排放位置 多年以來 更加深了我們的刻板印象 碳地圖顯示每平方哩的排放量 因此任何美國的碳地圖 看似美國夜間衛星空照圖 城市看起來炙熱,郊區比較冷清 鄉下則一片漆黑與平靜 直到經濟學家表示質疑 這樣衡量碳排對嗎? 如果全國總人數不變 我們可以選擇住在 人均碳排較少的地方 他們提議測量平均家戶碳排 方法改變後,碳地圖豬羊變色 市中心最為冷清,郊區色澤較暖 呈現火紅的是鄉間 就是「開到你買得起為止」的地方 因此看法有了根本改變 愛德華.格雷瑟 (Edward Glaeser) 之類的環保人士和經濟學家 表示人類是具毀滅性的物種 喜愛自然的人最應該做的 是離開那裡 搬到城市,人口密度越高越好 像曼哈頓一樣的高密度城市 表現的成績最好 曼哈頓居民平均汽油消耗之低 是美國其他地方1920年代以來所未見 耗電量是達拉斯的一半 當然我們還有改善的空間 加拿大相較美國,城市汽油消耗少一半 歐洲城市的汽油消耗也是少一半 顯然我們還有空間可以改善 我們也想改善,大家都在致力於環保
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.
我最後在這個議題的論點是 我認為我們的環保走錯了方向 我和很多人一樣認為 關注小器具 關注附加物—— 我的住家可以添加什麼 我在現有之上可以加點什麼 才能讓生活方式更能持續?—— 這種思維似乎主導了議題 我也跳不出窠臼 我和妻子在華盛頓特區 廢棄的土地上蓋新房子 我們選購居家用品 盡量在綠色商店 我們買了太陽能光伏發電系統 太陽能熱水器,兩段式抽水馬桶 竹製地板 德國製高科技爐灶燃燒木頭 碳排量據稱顯然低於 讓木頭在森林中 自行腐敗 然而這些創新 剛才那個來自產品說明 (笑聲) 這些所有的創新加起來 效果遠遠不如 居住在適合步行的鄰里 在市中心離捷運三條街的地方 我家已經全面換裝節能燈泡 你們也應該這麼做 但是全面換裝節能燈泡 每年省下的能源只等於 搬到適宜步行的城市一周
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?
這點大家避而不談 政客和商人都不敢 把環保宣傳為「生活方式的選擇」 誰敢告訴美國人 應該要改變生活方式 但如果生活方式攸關生活品質 或許攸關我們更享受的東西 優於我們現有的東西又如何?
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.
生活品質評比的金字招牌 叫做默瑟調查 (Mercer Survey) 你們或許聽過 他們評比世界上百個國家 認為生活品質有十個標準: 健康、經濟、教育 住家等等 還有六個,但時間有限
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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.
有趣的是 美國排名最前面的是檀香山 第28名,其次的城市也在意料之中 西雅圖和波士頓,都適宜步行 陽光帶的開車城市 達拉斯、鳳凰城之類,抱歉亞特蘭大 這些城市都沒上榜 但哪些城市更名列前茅? 加拿大的溫哥華 我提過他們的耗油量少一半 德語城市也常上榜 例如杜塞道夫和維也納 他們的耗油量也少一半 兩種指標成正比,出乎意外
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.
採取更永續的生活方式 能提高生活品質嗎? 我認為讓我們生活 更能持續之事 確實會提高我們的生活品質 那就是住在適宜步行的鄰里 生活可持續與否,包括財富 和健康 未必是影響我們持續的關鍵因素 但是尤其在美國 我們污染過多 是因為我們浪費時間 金錢和生命在公路上 似乎這兩個問題 解決辦法相同,那就是讓城市 更適宜步行
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)
要做到不容易,但是絕對可行 已有成功的例子 成功實行的城市 在全球和美國並不罕見 邱吉爾的話讓我感到安慰 他是這麼說的: 「可以信賴美國人 做對的事情 只要等他們錯事做盡了。」 (笑聲)
Thank you.
謝謝
(Applause)
(掌聲)