So, let me add to the complexity of the situation we find ourselves in. At the same time that we're solving for climate change, we're going to be building cities for three billion people. That's a doubling of the urban environment. If we don't get that right, I'm not sure all the climate solutions in the world will save mankind, because so much depends on how we shape our cities: not just environmental impacts, but our social well-being, our economic vitality, our sense of community and connectedness.
讓我為我們現在的處境 再增加一些複雜度。 在我們想辦法處理氣候變遷的同時, 我們也要為三十億人建造城市。 也就是要把都市環境再增加一倍。 如果我們沒有做對, 世界上所有的氣候解決方案 可能也無法拯救人類, 因為我們形塑城市的方式, 具有很大的影響力: 不僅影響環境, 還有我們的社會福祉、 我們的經濟活力, 我們的社群意識,以及連結性。
Fundamentally, the way we shape cities is a manifestation of the kind of humanity we bring to bear. And so getting it right is, I think, the order of the day. And to a certain degree, getting it right can help us solve climate change, because in the end, it's our behavior that seems to be driving the problem. The problem isn't free-floating, and it isn't just ExxonMobil and oil companies. It's us; how we live. How we live.
我們形塑城市的方式 基本上就是在呈現 我們想要發揮什麼樣的人性。 所以我認為把它做對 非常重要。 且在某種程度上,把它做對 也能協助我們解決氣候變遷, 因為,到頭來,這個問題 背後的推手似乎是我們的行為。 這個問題並不是獨立的, 也不只是埃克森美孚 和石油公司要負責。 源頭是我們;我們的生活方式。 我們的生活方式。
There's a villain in this story. It's called sprawl, and I'll be upfront about that. But it's not just the kind of sprawl you think of, or many people think of, as low-density development out at the periphery of the metropolitan area. Actually, I think sprawl can happen anywhere, at any density. The key attribute is that it isolates people. It segregates people into economic enclaves and land-use enclaves. It separates them from nature. It doesn't allow the cross-fertilization, the interaction, that make cities great places and that make society thrive. So the antidote to sprawl is really what we all need to be thinking about, especially when we're taking on this massive construction project.
在這個故事中有個壞蛋, 叫做蔓延(擴張), 我會很坦白來談它。 但,並不是各位或許多人 認為的那種蔓延, 不是指在大都會地區 周邊的低密度發展。 其實,任何密度的任何地方 都可能出現蔓延。 蔓延的關鍵特色是會把人隔離。 它會用經濟飛地 及土地用途飛地將人分離。 它會把人和大自然分開。 它不容許雜交、互動, 但這些元素能讓城市變好, 讓社會繁榮。 所以我們應該好好思考 蔓延的解藥是什麼, 特別是在我們要承擔 這個重大的建造計畫時。
So let me take you through one exercise. We developed the model for the state of California so they could get on with reducing carbon emissions. We did a whole series of scenarios for how the state could grow, and this is just one overly simplified one. We mixed different development prototypes and said they're going to carry us through the year 2050, 10 million new crew in our state of California. And one was sprawl. It's just more of the same: shopping malls, subdivisions, office parks. The other one was dominated by, not everybody moving to the city, but just compact development, what we used to think of as streetcar suburbs, walkable neighborhoods, low-rise, but integrated, mixed-used environments. And the results are astounding. They're astounding not just for the scale of the difference of this one shift in our city-making habit but also because each one represents a special interest group, a special interest group that used to advocate for their concerns one at a time. They did not see the, what I call, "co-benefits" of urban form that allows them to join with others.
讓我帶大家看一個模擬演練。 我們為加州開發出了這個模型, 讓他們在減少碳排放 方面能有所進展。 我們做了各種加州 可能發生的成長情境, 這只是其中一個過度簡化的情境。 我們混合了不同的發展原型, 假設要處理的目標是在 2050 年時 加州會增加一千萬新成員。 其中一個原型就是蔓延, 更多的如出一轍: 購物中心、分區、辦公園區。 另一個原型的重點是, 並非人人都搬到城市中, 只是緊實的發展,即我們 以前所謂的有軌電車郊區, 走得到的鄰里,低樓層, 但卻是多用途的整合環境。 而結果十分驚人。 驚人的原因不只是因為 把城市建設習慣 做一點小轉變就能帶來 這麼大的差異, 也是因為每個鄰里都代表 一個特殊的利益團體, 這些特殊利益團體以往倡導 他們關心的議題時必須要 一個一個來。 它們以往沒有看見 我所謂都市形式的「共同利益」: 讓它們可以與其他人結合。
So, land consumption: environmentalists are really concerned about this, so are farmers; there's a whole range of people, and, of course, neighborhood groups that want open space nearby. The sprawl version of California almost doubles the urban physical footprint.
比如,土地消耗, 環保人士非常關心這個議題, 農民也很關心; 有各種人,當然,還有希望 附近有開放空間的鄰里團體。 蔓延版的加州 會讓都市實體足跡變成近兩倍。
Greenhouse gas: tremendous savings, because in California, our biggest carbon emission comes from cars, and cities that don't depend on cars as much obviously create huge savings.
溫室氣體:大量減少, 因為加州最大的碳排放來源是汽車, 不那麼仰賴汽車的城市 很明顯能大大減少溫室氣體。
Vehicle miles traveled: that's what I was just talking about. Just reducing the average 10,000 miles per household per year, from somewhere in the mid-26,000 per household, has a huge impact not just on air quality and carbon but also on the household pocketbook. It's very expensive to drive that much, and as we've seen, the middle class is struggling to hold on.
車輛行駛里程數: 這就是我剛才談的。 只要把每戶每年的平均 哩程數減少一萬哩, 原本每戶有兩萬六千五百哩左右, 不僅對空氣品質和碳 會有很大的影響, 也會影響到家庭經濟狀況。 開那麼多哩程數是很昂貴的, 我們已經發現, 中產階級要維持生活都很辛苦。
Health care: we were talking about how do you fix it once we broke it -- clean the air. Why not just stop polluting? Why not just use our feet and bikes more? And that's a function of the kinds of cities that we shape.
健康照護:我們先前談過 破壞之後要如何修復—— 把空氣清乾淨。 為什麼不停止污染? 為什麼不多用步行或騎單車? 我們想要打造的城市就這個功能。
Household costs: 2008 was a mark in time, not of just the financial industry running amok. It was that we were trying to sell too many of the wrong kind of housing: large lot, single family, distant, too expensive for the average middle-class family to afford and, quite frankly, not a good fit to their lifestyle anymore. But in order to move inventory, you can discount the financing and get it sold. I think that's a lot of what happened. Reducing cost by 10,000 dollars -- remember, in California the median is 50,000 -- this is a big element. That's just cars and utility costs. So the affordable housing advocates, who often sit off in their silos separate from the environmentalists, separate from the politicians, everybody fighting with everyone, now begin to see common cause, and I think the common cause is what really brings about the change.
家庭開銷: 2008 年是標誌性的一年, 不只是金融業大亂, 還有我們試圖銷售太多不對的住房: 大面積、單一家庭、距離遠, 昂貴到一般中產家庭無法負擔, 且,老實說,也不再 符合他們的生活方式。 但,為了清庫存, 你可以在資金上 打個折扣就把它賣掉。 我想現實很多情況就是如此。 把成本降低一萬美金—— 別忘了,在加州, 中位數是五萬美金—— 一萬是很高的比例。 那只是汽車和水電瓦斯的成本。 所以,提倡可負擔住房的人, 通常都待在他們的地窖裡, 接觸不到環保人士, 接觸不到政治人物, 每個人都在和每個人爭吵, 他們也開始看見共同目標了, 我認為,其實是 共同目標帶來了改變。
Los Angeles, as a result of these efforts, has now decided to transform itself into a more transit-oriented environment. As a matter of fact, since '08, they've voted in 400 billion dollars of bonds for transit and zero dollars for new highways. What a transformation: LA becomes a city of walkers and transit, not a city of cars.
這些努力的成果包括洛杉磯 現在決定要將該城市做轉變, 成為更運輸導向的環境。 事實上,從 2008 年起, 他們已經透過選票投入 四千億美金在運輸公債上, 新高速公路則一毛錢都沒有。 好個轉變: 洛杉磯成了步行和運輸的城市, 而不是汽車的城市。 (掌聲)
(Applause)
這是怎麼發生的?
How does it happen? You take the least desirable land, the strip, you add where there's space, transit and then you infill mixed-use development, you satisfy new housing demands and you make the existing neighborhoods all around it more complex, more interesting, more walkable.
把最沒有人要的土地,帶狀區域, 在有空間的地方加上運輸, 接著再填入 混合用途的開發, 能滿足新的住房需求, 讓它附近既有的鄰里 變得更複雜,更有趣,更適合行走。
Here's another kind of sprawl: China, high-density sprawl, what you think of as an oxymoron, but the same problems, everything isolated in superblocks, and of course this amazing smog that was just spoken to. Twelve percent of GDP in China now is spent on the health impacts of that. The history, of course, of Chinese cities is robust. It's like any other place. Community was all about small, local shops and local services and walking, interacting with your neighbors. It may sound utopian, but it's not. It's actually what people really want. The new superblocks -- these are blocks that would have 5,000 units in them, and they're gated as well, because nobody knows anybody else. And of course, there isn't even a sidewalk, no ground floor shops -- a very sterile environment. I found this one case here in one of the superblocks where people had illicitly set up shops in their garages so that they could have that kind of local service economy. The desire of people to get it right is there. We just have to get the planners on board and the politicians.
以下是另一種蔓延: 中國,高密度蔓延, 高密度和蔓延聽起來很矛盾, 但,同樣的問題, 車輛禁行區隔開了一切, 當然,還有剛才談過的驚人霧霾。 中現在國把 GDP 的 12% 花在霧霾對健康的影響上。 當然,和其他地方一樣, 中國城市的歷史很健全。 社區的重點是小型的當地商店、 當地的服務、步行、 和鄰居互動。 聽起來可能像空想,但並不然。 那其實是人民真正想要的。 新的車輛禁行區—— 這些禁行區中有五千個單位, 它們通通都有門禁, 因為大家彼此不認識。 當然,那裡甚至沒有人行道, 沒有一樓的店面—— 非常枯燥的環境。 我在其中一個車輛禁行區中 找到這個例子, 這裡有人違法在 自家車庫中開設商店, 這樣他們才能有那種當地服務經濟。 大家已經有慾望想要把它做對。 我們只需要找規劃師和政治人物。
All right. Some technical planning stuff. Chongqing is a city of 30 million people. It's almost as big as California. This is a small growth area. They wanted us to test the alternative to sprawl in several cities across China. This is for four-and-a-half million people. What the takeaway from this image is, every one of those circles is a walking radius around a transit station -- massive investment in metro and BRT, and a distribution that allows everybody to work within walking distance of that.
好,接下來的部分和規劃技術有關。 重慶市有三千萬人口。 幾乎和加州一樣大。 這是一塊小型成長區。 他們希望我們去測試 中國數個城市有哪些 蔓延的替代方案。 這是位四千五百萬人口設計的。 這張圖要傳遞的訊息是: 圖上的每一個圓圈都是運輸站 周圍步行可及的範圍—— 大量投資地鐵和巴士捷運系統, 且分佈的方式能讓每個人 都能步行到運輸站乘車去上班。
The red area, this is a blow-up. All of a sudden, our principles called for green space preserving the important ecological features. And then those other streets in there are auto-free streets. So instead of bulldozing, leveling the site and building right up to the river, this green edge was something that really wasn't normative in China until these set of practices began experimentation there. The urban fabric, small blocks, maybe 500 families per block. They know each other. The street perimeter has shops so there's local destinations. And the streets themselves become smaller, because there are more of them. Very simple, straightforward urban design.
紅色的區域,把它放大來看。 突然間,我們的原則 帶來了綠色空間, 保存了重要的生態特色。 那裡的其他街道都是無車街道。 所以,不是推土機鏟平這個地點, 在河流上建設, 這種綠色優勢在中國真的不常見, 直到這些實做計畫 在這裡開始進行實驗。 都市紋理(面貌),小型街區, 也許每個街區五百個家庭。 他們認識彼此。 街道周邊有商店, 所以有當地的地方可以前往。 而街道本身變小,因為數量變多了。 非常簡單, 直接的都市設計。 這是我個人的最愛。
Now, here you have something I dearly love. Think of the logic. If only a third of the people have cars, why do we give 100 percent of our streets to cars? What if we gave 70 percent of the streets to car-free, to everybody else, so that the transit could move well for them, so that they could walk, so they could bike?
想想這邏輯。 如果只有三分之一的人有車, 為什麼要把所有的街道都給汽車用? 如果我們把 70% 的街道 給其他人使用,禁行汽車, 讓他們的通路很順暢, 他們能夠步行,能騎單車。
Why not have --
為什麼不——
(Applause)
(掌聲)
geographic equity in our circulation system? And quite frankly, cities would function better. No matter what they do, no matter how many ring roads they build in Beijing, they just can't overcome complete gridlock. So this is an auto-free street, mixed use along the edge. It has transit running down the middle. I'm happy to make that transit autonomous vehicles, but maybe I'll have a chance to talk about that later.
在我們的循環系統中 納入地理上的公平? 坦白說,城市會運行得更好。 不論他們怎麼做,不論他們 在北京建造多少環形道路, 他們就是無法克服 交通完全阻塞的問題。 這是一條無車街道, 路邊做混合用途。 正下向有運輸系統在運行。 我很樂意把下方的運輸 設計為無人駕駛車,但, 也許後續有機會再來談。
So there are seven principles that have now been adopted by the highest levels in the Chinese government, and they're moving to implement them. And they're simple, and they are globally, I think, universal principles. One is to preserve the natural environment, the history and the critical agriculture.
所以有七項原則現在已經被 中國政府的最高階級採納, 且他們正在準備實施。 這些原則很簡單, 且我想都是全球通用的。 第一,保存自然環境、 歷史,以及重要的農業。
Second is mix. Mixed use is popular, but when I say mixed, I mean mixed incomes, mixed age groups as well as mixed-land use.
第二,混合。 常聽到的是混合用途, 但我說的混合, 我指的是混合收入、混合年齡層, 以及混合土地用途。
Walk. There's no great city that you don't enjoy walking in. You don't go there. The places you go on vacation are places you can walk. Why not make it everywhere?
步行。沒有很棒的城市 會讓你不享受在市內步行的。 你不會去那種地方。 你會選擇的渡假地 會是你能步行的地方。 為什麼不讓處處都能步行?
Bike is the most efficient means of transportation we know. China has now adopted policies that put six meters of bike lane on every street. They're serious about getting back to their biking history.
單車是我們所知 最有效率的交通工具。 中國現在實施的政策是在每條街道上 都規劃六公尺的單車道。 他們很認真地想要找回 人人騎單車的歷史。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
Complicated planner-ese here: connect. It's a street network that allows many routes instead of singular routes and provides many kinds of streets instead of just one.
這是個複雜的規劃師用語:連結。 它是一種街道網路, 會有多條路線,不只一條, 且提供多種類型的街道,不只一種。
Ride. We have to invest more in transit. There's no silver bullet. Autonomous vehicles are not going to solve this for us. As a matter of fact, they're going to generate more traffic, more VMT, than the alternative.
交通工具。 我們得在運輸上投資更多。 沒有萬靈丹。 自動駕駛車輛無法 為我們解決這個問題。 事實上,它們會產生更多 交通流量和車輛行駛哩程, 比其他替代方案更多。
And focus. We have a hierarchy of the city based on transit rather than the old armature of freeways. It's a big paradigm shift, but those two things have to get reconnected in ways that really shape the structure of the city. So I'm very hopeful. In California, the United States, China -- these changes are well accepted.
焦點。 城市階層的基礎是運輸 而不是舊式的高速幹道架構。 這是很重大的範式轉變, 但這兩者必須要設法重新連結起來, 且要真正能夠形塑出城市的結構。 所以,我抱持很大的希望。 在加州、美國、中國——
I'm hopeful for two reasons. One is, most people get it. They understand intrinsically what a great city can and should be. The second is that the kind of analysis we can bring to bear now allows people to connect the dots, allows people to shape political coalitions that didn't exist in the past. That allows them to bring into being the kinds of communities we all need.
這些改變的被接受度很高。 我抱持希望的原因有二。 第一,大部分人能懂。 他們了解,好的城市在本質上 能夠/應該是什麼樣子的。 第二個原因是, 我們現在能夠運用的分析 讓大家能把拼圖拼起來, 讓大家能形成過去 不存在的政治聯盟, 這讓他們能夠實現出 大家都需要的那種社區。
Thank you.
謝謝。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
Chris Anderson: So, OK: autonomous driving, self-driving cars. A lot of people here are very excited about them. What are your concerns or issues about them?
克里斯·安德森:所以,好, 自動駕駛汽車, 這裡許多人都很期待它們。 你對它們的顧慮是什麼?
Peter Calthorpe: Well, I think there's almost too much hype here. First is, everybody says we're going to get rid of a lot of cars. What they don't say is you're going to get a lot more vehicle miles. You're going to get a lot more cars moving on streets. There will be more congestion.
彼得·卡爾索普:我想, 熱度有點太過了。 首先,大家都說我們 將可以擺脫很多汽車。 他們沒有說的是,車輛哩程會大增。 會有更多車輛在街道上移動。 交通會更擁擠。
CA: Because they're so appealing -- you can drive while reading or sleeping.
克:因為很吸引人—— 你可以邊開車邊閱讀或睡覺。
PC: Well, a couple of reasons. One is, if they're privately owned, people will travel greater distances. It'll be a new lease on life to sprawl. If you can work on your way to work, you can live in more remote locations. It'll revitalize sprawl in a way that I'm deeply frightened. Taxis: about 50 percent of the surveys say that people won't share them. If they don't share them, you can end up with a 90 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled. If you share them, you're still at around a 30 percent increase in VMT.
彼:有好幾個理由。 第一,如果它們是私有的。 大家會行駛的距離會更長。 蔓延又會復活。如果你在 去工作的路上就可以工作, 你可以住在更偏遠的地方。 蔓延又會以我十分害怕的方式再現。 計程車: 約有 50% 的調查指出 大家不願共享計程車。 如果不願共享, 結果可能會是 車輛行駛哩程增加 90%。 如果可以共享, 車輛行駛哩程仍會增加 30%。
CA: Sharing them, meaning having multiple people riding at once in some sort of intelligent ride-sharing?
克:共享的意思是用智慧的 方式讓許多人同時搭乘—— 彼:是的,就像沒有 方向盤的優步共享。
PC: Yeah, so the Uber share without a steering wheel. The reality is, the efficiency of vehicles -- you can do it with or without a steering wheel, it doesn't matter. They claim they're the only ones that are going to be efficient electric, but that's not true. But the real bottom line is that walking, biking and transit are the way cities and communities thrive. And putting people in their private bubbles, whether they have a steering wheel or not, is the wrong direction. And quite frankly, the image of an AV on its way to McDonald's to pick up a pack without its owner, just being sent off on these kind of random errands is really frightening to me.
現實是,提升車輛的效率—— 不論有沒有方向盤 都可以去做,無所謂。 他們聲稱這是唯一高電效率的 方式,但事實不是如此。 真正的情況是,步行、 騎單車、大眾運輸 才能讓城市和社區繁榮。 把人放到他們的私人泡泡裡, 不論有沒有方向盤, 是錯的方向。老實說, 自動駕駛汽車前往麥當勞取餐, 車上沒有駕駛人, 就只是被指派去完成隨機的差事, 這影像讓我很害怕。
CA: Well, thank you for that, and I have to say, the images you showed of those mixed-use streets were really inspiring, really beautiful.
克:謝謝你的說明,你剛才 分享那些混合用途街道的圖像, 非常鼓舞人心,非常美麗。謝謝你。
PC: Thank you. CA: Thank you for your work.
彼:謝謝你。
(Applause)
(掌聲)