评论
打印
What is our imagery of cities? When we imagine cities, we often imagine it to be something like this.
我们眼中的城市是什么样的？当我们想到城市时，脑海中通常会有这样的画面。
But what if what you're looking at is just half a picture, but there is a city within the city.
但是你们看到的并不是全貌，还有城中之城。
This part of the city is often seen as slums, squatters, informal,
这一部分的城市常常被视作为贫民窟、非法居住区、非正式居民区，
and people living here are called illegal, informal, criminals, beneficiaries, supplicants, etc.
而居住在里面的人们则被称为非法的、非正式的、罪犯、靠救济存活、乞丐等等。
But in reality, these are poor people with no choices.
但是事实上，这些是别无选择的穷人。
Poverty is a vicious cycle. If born poor, it can take three or more generations to escape one.
贫穷是一个恶性循环。如果生而贫困，则需要三代或更多代才能脱离贫困。
Many are forced in this cycle without choices,
许多人被迫活在这样的循环中，别无选择，
to live on pavements, along train tracks, in dumping grounds, along rivers, swamps and many such unlivable spaces,
只能住在人行道上、铁轨旁、垃圾场里、河边、沼泽以及许多像这样不宜生活的地方，
without clean water, toilets or housing.
没有干净用水、厕所或住房。
But these places are not unfamiliar to me,
但是对我而言，这些地方并不陌生，
because since the age of six, I accompanied my father, a doctor, who treated patients in the slums of Bombay.
因为从六岁起，我就跟随身为医生的父亲，在孟买的贫民窟医治病人。
Growing up, I would help him carry his bag of medicines after school lessons -- I loved doing that.
成长过程中，我会在下课后帮他背装满药品的袋子--我乐在其中。
Wanting to do something about these habitats, I decided to become an architect.
我想要为这些地方做些什么，于是我决定成为一名建筑师。
But quite early on, I realized that the beauty of architecture was only for the rich.
但是从很早开始，我就意识到建筑的美感只是属于有钱人的。
So I decided to do urban planning and joined an NGO in India that works with the urban poor
所以我决定从事城市规划行业，并加入了印度的一个非政府组织（NGO），该组织和城市中的穷人合作，
who organize themselves to access basic services, such as water, sanitation and housing, for the poor living in cities.
他们通常会自发组织起来以获取基本的服务，向生活在城市中的穷人提供水、卫生和住房。
Now I spent 10 years of my life in professional education, in learning, and then five years in unlearning it.
我花了10年时间接受专业的教育，然后花了5年时间忘记所学。
Because I realized that all my training in architecture, design and planning failed ground realities.
因为我意识到，我在建筑、设计和规划上受过的训练，都与现实是脱节的。
And this is where I learned the power of choice.
此时，我学到了选择的力量。
I unlearned many things, but there are two myths about the poor that I would like to share that we live with.
我忘记了很多事情，但是关于穷人，有两个迷思与我们息息相关，我想要分享给大家。
The first myth is a perception that migration of poor people into cities is a problem.
第一个迷思是，在人们的观念中，穷人涌入城市是一个问题。
Is migration really a choice? My mentor Sheela Patel asked to those who think of this as a problem,
人口迁移真的是一种选择吗？我的导师舍拉·帕特曾向那些认为这是个问题的人发问，
"Go ask your grandfather where he came from," she says.
她说，“问问你的祖父他来自哪里。”
So what do poor people do when they migrate in cities?
当穷人搬入城市时，他们会做什么？
Let me share an example. This is the Mumbai International Airport.
让我分享一个例子。这是孟买国际机场。
All that you see in blue are large informal settlements around it.
你们看到的蓝色区域是围绕在其周边的大型非正式社区。
Close to 75,000 people live here.
将近七万五千人在这里生活。
So who are these people that work silently in hotels, restaurants,
那么，那些默默无闻地在酒店、餐厅工作，
as laborers, babysitters, house helps and countless other jobs that we need for cities to function without a glitch?
从事着劳工、保姆、家庭帮手以及数不清的其他工作，确保城市顺利运作的人，他们是谁？
And where do they live? In most cities, they live in slums. So let us think again.
他们住在哪里？在大多数城市中，他们住在贫民窟。那么让我们再思考一下。
Do we want poor people to stop migrating in our cities? What if they had a choice of not to?
我们想要穷人停止迁入我们的城市吗？如果他们可以选择是否迁入，那会怎么样？
The second myth is my personal experience. It's this attitude that we professionals know better.
第二个迷思来自我的个人经历。也就是专业人士懂得更多的这种态度。
We professionals love to make choices for others, especially for the poor. Let me share an experience.
我们专业人士喜欢为他人做选择，特别是对穷人。以我的个人经历为例。
In a workshop that looked at designing 250 new houses for poor families from a slum nearby,
在一个为周边贫民窟的贫困家庭设计250座新房的工作坊上，
there were different building materials that were presented,
人们展示了不同的建筑材料，
ranging from papier-maché, cardboard, honeycomb, etc., simply because they were affordable.
包括混凝纸浆、纸板、蜂巢等等，仅仅因为这些材料更廉价。
But there was this one idea that was of shipping containers.
但有一个主意是使用集装箱。
Now we immediately approved of it, because we thought it was sustainable, scalable, affordable.
我们立刻就同意了这个想法，因为我们觉得这是可持续、可以扩大规模且可负担的。
But during this presentation, a lady from the slum humbly spoke up.
但是在展示过程中，一位来自贫民窟的女士谦虚地发声了。
And she asked the presenter, "Would you choose to live in it?" "If not, then why did you think we would?"
她问了展示人，“你会选择住在里面吗？”“如果你不会，你为什么觉得我们会？”
Now this was a personal unlearning moment for me,
那一刻让我意识到要忘记所学，
where I realized that poverty only changes affordability -- it does not change aspirations.
我发现，贫困只改变了人能负担什么--贫困没有改变人的志向。
Now poor people have lived in temporary structures all their life.
穷人的一生都生活在临时建筑中。
They go from wall to wall, moving from bricks to tin.
他们从一面墙换到另一面，从砖块房屋换到铁桶搭成的屋子。
They move from building from bamboo, tarpaulin sheets, plastic, to cardboard, to tin, to bricks and cement, just like the way we do.
他们从用竹子、防水布、塑料搭建房屋，换成用纸板和铁桶，最后改进到用砖块和水泥，就像我们一样。
So somewhere here, we were forcing our choices on them.
某种程度上，我们把我们的选择强加给了他们。
So should we force our choices on them, or should we broaden their choices?
那么，我们是应该把自己的选择强加给他们，还是应该拓宽他们选择的余地呢？
Now what if the opportunity to choose was given to people?
如果人们被赋予了选择的机会，那会怎么样？
These are women who lived on the pavements of a neighborhood in Mumbai.
这些是生活在孟买一个社区的人行道上的女人。
Now they faced constant evictions, and in response to it, they organized a women's network called Mahila Milan.
为了应对她们所面临的无休止的驱逐，她们创立了一个女性组织，叫做“团结的女性”。
Not only did they fight against evictions with those in power, saved money and bought land,
她们不仅与权势的驱逐作斗争、存钱并买地，
but they also designed and helped construct their own houses.
还设计并协助搭建她们自己的房子。
Well, these were illiterate women, so how did they do that?
这些都是不识字的女人，她们是如何做到的？
They used floor mats and saris to understand measurements.
她们把地板垫和莎丽服当作量尺。
A sari is four meters in length and 1.5 meters in width.
一件莎丽服长4米，宽1.5米。
They used these simple day-to-day items to demonstrate house models.
她们使用这些简单的日常物件来展示房屋模型。
And even they made three options to choose from and invited all their fellow residents to come and have a look.
她们甚至设计了三种格局以供选择，并邀请邻居来参观。
And everybody loved this option that had a loft in it, simply because it did two things.
每个人都喜欢这个有阁楼的布局，仅因为它有两个特点。
One is that it accommodated larger families to sleep in.
一是，它能容纳下更大的家庭。
And two, it allowed home-based work, such as bangle-making, jewelry-designing, embroidery-stitching, packaging items, etc.
二是，它允许家庭作坊式的工作，比如手镯制作、珠宝设计、刺绣、包装物件等等。
Now they also decided to not have a toilet inside,
他们还决定不在里面安置厕所，
but instead have it outside in the corridors, simply because it gave them more space and it was cheaper.
而是把厕所设在外面的走廊，因为这样会有更多的空间，还更便宜。
Now, professionals could have never thought of something like that.
专业人员根本不可能有这样的考量。
A formal design would have necessitated to have a toilet inside.
正式的设计一定会把厕所放在屋内。
Now these are smaller examples -- let me share some larger context: 881,000,000 people
这些是较小的例子--还有更大规模的情形：8亿8100万人，
that's about one sixth of this world, as we talk here -- are living in slums and informal settlements.
我们说的是全世界将近六分之一的人口--居住在贫民窟或是非正式居民区。
Almost every city in the global south has large slums in the size of townships.
几乎南半球的每个城市，都有市镇规模的大型贫民窟。
Kibera, in Nairobi, Dharavi, in Mumbai, Khayelitsha in South Africa, just a few.
内罗毕的基贝拉，孟买的达拉维，南非的卡亚利沙，这只是其中几个例子。
Now initially, they were all on waste and abandoned lands that cities were never interested in.
一开始，它们都位于被废弃的土地上，城市对这些土地一直没什么兴趣。
As cities grew, poor people started building on these lands and brought value to this over time.
随着城市规模的扩大，穷人开始在这些土地上建设，逐渐给这些土地带来了价值。
And today, these lands have become real estate hot spots that everybody wants a piece of.
而今天，这些土地变成了炙手可热的房地产资源，每个人都想分一杯羹。
So how do cities and those in power choose to deal with them?
那么，城市和有权势的人选择怎么处理它们呢？
They demolish them and evict them and move them away from their cities and economies in order to build a new infrastructure.
他们拆除建筑，驱逐居民，把穷人从他们的城市和经济体中赶走，以建筑新的基础设施。
They move them into vertical housing, which in reality looks like this.
他们让穷人搬进垂直型建筑，现实中看上去是这样。
Now when built in high densities, they lack natural light and ventilation, and it often leads to unhealthy conditions.
高密度的建筑缺乏良好的采光和通风条件，通常会损害健康。
Now, on one hand, poor people are not involved in the participation of design, and there is poor quality of construction.
一方面，穷人没有参与到设计之中，建筑的质量也不好。
And on the other hand, they do not understand how to do maintenance,
另一方面，他们不懂得如何维护保养，
you know, keeping bills, keeping records, forming societies -- this is always difficult for them.
比如保留账单、保持记录、形成社区--这些对他们来说总是很难。
And being forced to move into this formal society, they end up looking like this in a few years.
他们被迫搬入这种正式的社区，在几年后便会成为这样。
Because formalization is not a product, it's a process.
因为正式化并不是一种产物，而是一个过程。
Moving from informal to formal for poor people is a journey. It takes time to accept and adapt.
对穷人来说，从非正式移入正式是一个旅程，需要时间去接受和适应。
And when that choice is not given, it becomes like this, which I'm afraid, in future, these would become the slums.
而当没有选择时，便会成为这样，恐怕将来这些地方会变成贫民窟。
Now instead of doing this, what if we accommodated poor people and gave them a choice to be a part of our cities
但我们还有别的选择，如果我们给穷人提供住房，给予他们成为我们城市一部分的选择，
and develop them where they are, giving them basic services, like in this picture?
开发他们所在的地区，为他们提供像图中这样的基础设施，那会怎么样呢？
Now what happens if cities and governments could work together,
如果城市和政府可以合作，
if governments acknowledge poor people, and they could build it together?
如果政府认可穷人，穷人可以参与建设，会发生什么？
This is Mukuru. It's a large informal settlement in Nairobi.
这是穆库鲁。内罗毕的一个大型非正式居民区。
It's one of the largest settlements in Africa. It's home to 300,000 people living over 650 acres of land.
也是非洲最大的居民区之一。这是30万人的家园，他们在263公顷的土地上生活。
To help us understand that scale, it's like squeezing the population of Pittsburgh into the New York Central Park.
为了帮助大家理解这一规模，这相当于把匹兹堡的人口挤到纽约的中央公园里面。
That's Mukuru. So to give us a glimpse, this is the condition of housing. And this is what it is in between them.
这就是穆库鲁。我们看看，这就是当地的住房条件，以及房屋之间的样子。
So what is life in Mukuru like, just talking briefly?
那么简单来说，穆库鲁的生活是怎么样的呢？
Five hundred and fifty people use one single water tap and pay nine times more than what anybody else in the city could pay,
550个人共用一个水龙头，而且相比城市中的人，要付九倍的价钱，
simply because there is no water infrastructure and water is sold.
仅是因为那里没有水利基础设施，水是用来卖的。
Many come back from work to find out that their houses do not exist,
许多人下班回来，发现他们的房子不见了，
because they have either been bulldozed, or they have been burned down.
因为这些房子要么被推倒了，要么被烧掉了。
So, tired of this situation, a local slum dwellers' federation called Muungano decided to do something about it.
所以，在厌倦了这样的情形之后，一个名为“穆加农”的当地贫民窟居民联盟决定行动起来改变现状。
In four years, they organized 20,000 residents to collect data, map structures and put it together.
四年间，他们组织了两万居民收集数据、绘制设施图并把它们整合起来。
And the plan was very simple -- they only needed four things.
方案非常简单--他们只要四样东西。
They wanted clean water, toilets, decent roads and, most importantly, not to be evicted.
清洁的用水、厕所、像样的道路，以及最重要的，不被驱逐。
So they presented this with the government of Nairobi.
他们向内罗毕政府展示了这个方案。
And for the first time in history ever, a city has agreed to do it.
有史以来第一次，城市同意了这个方案。
The city of Nairobi, the government of Kenya, declared Mukuru to be a special planning area,
内罗毕市和肯尼亚政府宣布穆库鲁成为特别规划区域，
which means that people could come up with their own plan.
这意味着人们可以提出他们自己的方案。
People could decide to come up with their own norms and standards,
人们可以制定出他们自己的规范和标准，
because the standards that work for the formal citizens do not work in informal settings.
因为适用于正规居民的标准并不适用于非正式社区。
So what does that mean, to give us an instance?
那么这意味着什么？举个例子来看。
If these are roads in Mukuru, you can see that there are houses along both sides of the road.
如果这些是穆库鲁的道路，你可以看到在道路的两旁都有房屋。
Now in order to bring in a city bus, as per the standards, planners would have gone for a luxurious 25-meter-wide road.
为了引入城市公交，根据标准，规划者会选择很奢侈的25米宽的道路。
Now that would mean displacing percent of the structures -- that's a lot of people.
这意味着会占去25%的建筑--很多人会失去房子。
So instead of doing that, we came up with a 12-meter-wide road,
所以我们不这么修路，而是选择了12米宽的道路，
which had the structures intact and brought the city bus without compromising on much services.
这保持了建筑的完整，同时引入了城市公交，而没有牺牲掉过多的服务。
In another instance, let's talk about community toilets.
再来看看社区厕所。
You know, in high-density areas, where there is no scope for individual toilets, like the public toilets that we have here.
你们知道，在人口密度高的地方，厕所没有办法设置独立隔间，像我们这里的公共厕所那样。
So we would go for a male section and a female section. But imagine this situation.
我们考虑分为男厕所和女厕所。但是思考下这个情形。
In the morning rush hours to the toilet, when everybody is in intense pressure to relieve themselves,
在早晨上厕所的高峰时刻，每个人都着急的要“解压”，
and if you're standing in a queue of 50 people, and there is a child standing behind an adult, who wins?
如果你站在50人的队伍里，有个孩子站在成人后面，谁会获胜？
Children end up squatting outside. And that's why women decided to come up with a separate squatting area for children.
孩子最终会在外面蹲着上厕所。这就是为什么女性决定给孩子设置专门分开的蹲厕区。
Now, who could have thought of something like that?
有谁会想到这些呢？
The idea here is that when poor people choose, they choose better. They choose what works for them.
这里的关键在于，当穷人做选择时，他们能做出更好的选择。他们的选择对他们更适用。
So choice is everything. And power decides choice.
所以选择权就是全部，而权力决定选择权。
And we need those in power -- politicians, leaders, governments, architects, planners, institutions, researchers
我们需要那些掌权的人--政客、领导、政府、建筑师、规划者、机构和研究人员，
and all of us in our everyday lives to respect choices.
以及我们生活中的所有人去尊重选择。
Instead of choosing what is right for people, for the poor, let's acknowledge and empower their choices.
不要为穷人选择什么是对的，而是承认并赋予他们选择的权利。
And that is how we can build better and inclusive cities for tomorrow, completing the imagery of cities built by the choices of its own people. Thank you.
这样，我们才能为将来建造出更好、更包容、构建在城市自身居民选择之上的城市，让城市的形象变得更加完整。谢谢。
