Why the "wrong side of the tracks" is usually the east side of cities | Stephen DeBerry

翻译人员: Ziyun Liao 校对人员: Lipeng Chen

I came to talk about first principles

今天来到这里， 我想和大家谈谈一些首要原则

and communities that I love --

和我热爱的一些城市——

especially East Palo Alto, California,

尤其是东帕罗奥图， 它位于加利福尼亚，

which is full of amazing people.

那里人才济济。

It's also a community that's oddly separated

但这个城市，被一条

穿过硅谷的101国道硬生生隔开。

by the 101 freeway that runs through Silicon Valley.

On the west side of the freeway in Palo Alto are the "haves,"

在这条高速路的西侧， 是“无所不有”的帕罗奥图，

on just about any dimension you can think of:

只要你想得到的，都能在这里找到：

education, income, access to water.

优越的教育，可观的收入， 丰富的水资源。

On the east side of the freeway are the "have-nots."

而这条高速路的东侧， 则是“一无所有”的帕罗奥图。

And even if you don't know East Palo Alto,

即使你没听说过东帕罗奥图，

you might know the story of eastside disparity,

你也许听过其它类似的故事， 讲述着东部城市如何的落魄，

无论是被铁路分开的东匹兹堡，

whether it's the separation of the railroad tracks in East Pittsburgh

or the Grosse Pointe Gate in East Detroit

被格罗斯波因特大门 隔开的底特律，

or East St. Louis, East Oakland, East Philly.

还是东圣路易斯， 东奥克兰，费城的东部。

Why is it that communities on the social, economic and environmental margin

为什么一个城市的社会， 经济和环境的边缘区，

tend to be on the east sides of places?

大多数都集中在东部呢？

Turns out,

事实证明，

it's the wind.

是因为风向。

If you look at the Earth from the North Pole,

如果你站在北极圈俯看地球，

you'd see that it rotates counterclockwise.

你会发现地球是逆时针旋转的。

The impact of this

结果是，

is that the winds in the northern and the southern hemispheres

北半球的风和南半球的风，

blow in the same direction as the rotation of the Earth --

都吹向了同一个方向——

to the east.

东方。

A way to think about this is:

我们可以这样理解：

想象我们坐在一堆篝火旁，

imagine you're sitting around a campfire.

你要负责安排坐满十个人， 还要保证每个人都能取到暖，

You've got to seat 10 people, you've got to keep everyone warm.

The question is: Who sits with the smoky wind blowing in their face?

但问题来了：谁坐在下风口被烟熏呢？

And the answer is:

答案是，

people with less power.

弱势群体的人。

This campfire dynamic is what's playing out in cities,

这个作用于我们城市的 篝火动力原理，

not just in the US, but all around the world:

不仅发生在美国，全世界亦是如此。

East London; the east side of Paris is this way;

东伦敦，巴黎的东部也是这样，

East Jerusalem.

还有东耶路撒冷。

Even down the street from where we're sitting right now,

甚至沿着我们所在的这条街，

the marginalized community is East Vancouver.

温哥华的东部也是被边缘化的一侧。

I'm not the only one to notice this.

我并不是唯一注意到这一点的人。

I nerded on this hard, for years.

我苦思冥想了这个问题很多年，

And I finally found a group of economic historians in the UK

最终在英国找到了 一群经济历史学家，

who modeled industrial-era smokestack dispersion.

他们规划了工业时代烟囱分布模式。

And they came to the same conclusion mathematically

经过计算后得出的结论

和我这个人类学家的如出一辙，

that I'd come to as an anthropologist,

which is: wind and pollution are driving marginalized communities to the east.

也就是：风向和污染是东部 城市被边缘化的诱因。

The dominant logic of the industrial era

工业时代的主导逻辑

is about disparity.

就是划分贫富差距。

It's about haves and have-nots, and that's become part of our culture.

就是“无所不有”和“一无所有”， 而那已经成为了我们文化的一部分。

That's why you know exactly what I'm talking about

那就是为什么如果我告诉你某人

来自“轨道错误的一侧”， 你就懂我在说他家境贫寒。

if I tell you someone's from the "wrong side of the tracks."

这个典故来源于， 风把火车产生的又脏又黑的烟

That phrase comes from the direction that wind would blow dirty train smoke --

to the east, usually.

往东吹，通常情况下是这样。

I'm not saying every single community in the east is on the margin,

我的意思不是说每个东部的 城市都处于边缘地带，

or every community on the margin is in the east,

或每个城市处在边缘地带的 社区都位于城市的东部，

但是我已经在尽我所能。通过 （城市）设计来缩小东西部的差距。

but I'm trying to make a bigger point about disparity by design.

So if you find yourself talking about any cardinal direction

如果你发现自己谈论的是

of a freeway, a river, some train tracks,

高速公路，河流， 火车轨道的基本方位，

you're talking about an eastside community.

其实你讨论的就是城市的东部。

Now, the wind is obviously a natural phenomenon.

风是一个常见的自然现象，

But the human design decisions that we make to separate ourselves

但是人类设计的决定， 让我们把彼此隔开的这个决定，

is not natural.

是人为的。

Consider the fact that every eastside community in the United States

考虑到在美国，每一个城市的东部，

was built during the era of legal segregation.

都是建于种族隔离合法的年代，

We clearly weren't even trying to design for the benefit of everyone,

很显然我们在设计城市时，甚至 都没有为每个人的利益考虑，

so we ended up dealing with issues like redlining.

于是我们最后就萌生了 诸如贷款歧视一类的问题。

This is where the government literally created maps

这是当时的政府设计的城市地图，

to tell bankers where they shouldn't lend.

告诉银行哪些地方不该放贷，

These are some of those actual maps.

这只是众多地图中的冰山一角。

And you'll notice how the red tends to be clustered

你们可能会注意到， 红色部分大都聚集在

on the east sides of these cities.

这些城市的东侧。

Those financial design decisions became a self-fulfilling prophecy:

那些在财政政策设计中所做出的决定， 都成为了自我应验的预言；

no loans turned into low property tax base

没有贷款，财产税的税收基数就小，

and that bled into worse schools and a less well-prepared workforce,

政府对学校建设投入就会减少，因此 培养出来的劳动力也更不具备竞争力，

and -- lo and behold -- lower incomes.

所以——瞧——又导致了更低的收入，

It means that you can't qualify for a loan.

低收入就意味着你没有资格申请贷款。

Just a vicious downward spiral.

这就是一个螺旋下降的恶性循环。

And that's just the case with lending.

而那只是关于借贷的一个例子而已。

We've made similarly sinister design decisions on any number of issues,

我们在许许多多问题上也曾 做过类似的恶名昭著的决定，

from water infrastructure

从水利基础建设，

to where we decide to place grocery stores versus liquor stores,

到决定要在哪里开杂货店或烟酒行，

or even for whom and how we design and fund technology products.

甚至连我们为了谁，以及如何设计 和资助技术产品都是如此。

Collectively, this list of harms

综上所述，这一系列的问题，

is the artifact of our more primitive selves.

都是我们的原始罪恶一手造成的。

I don't think this is how we'd want to be remembered,

我想，这并不是我们想要 被世人记住的方式，

but this is basically what we've been doing

但这基本就是我们上个世纪

to eastside communities for the last century.

针对东部城市建设的所作所为。

The good news is, it doesn't have to be this way.

但好在，事情还有回旋的余地，

We got ourselves into this eastside dilemma

如果我们陷入这个 东部发展两难的局面

through bad design,

是因为一个糟糕的决定，

那么我们就可以通过一个 合理的设计，摆脱这一局面。

and so we can get out of it with good design.

And I believe the first principle of good design is actually really simple:

而且我相信，一个好的设计， 其首要原则其实非常简单：

we have to start with the commitment to design for the benefit of everyone.

我们要从承诺为每个人的 利益考虑做起。

So, remember the campfire metaphor.

大家还记得那个篝火比喻吗？

If we want to benefit everyone, maybe we just sit in a horseshoe,

如果我们想惠及每一个人的话， 只要设计成马蹄形就好了。

so nobody gets the smoke in their face.

这样就没有人会被烟熏到，

I've got to make a note to the gentrifiers,

我要给乡绅们提一提这个建议，

因为这幅图的意义，不是说

because the point of this image is not to say

你们现在要去城市的东边， 然后粗暴的将大家赶到别的地方去，

you get to roll into eastside communities and just move people out of the way,

因为你不能这么做。

because you don't.

(Applause)

（掌声）

But the point is,

但关键在于，

if you start with this first principle of benefiting everyone,

如果你把所有人的利益当作 处理一切事物的第一原则，

then elegant solutions may become more obvious than you assume.

那么这些问题就会比你 想象的更容易去解决。

What are the elegant solutions to close this gap

那么有什么办法能够合理的

减小硅谷东西帕罗奥图 之间的（贫富）差距呢？

between Palo Alto and East Palo Alto in Silicon Valley?

I've got to like the odds of starting with EPA [East Palo Alto].

我想可以先从东帕罗奥图 开始，迎难而上。

It's in the middle of Silicon Valley, the epicenter of innovation

它位于硅谷的中部，是创新和财富的

and wealth creation.

重中之重。

If we can solve this problem anywhere, it ought to be here.

如果说要在哪个地方解决问题， 那么这里绝对是不二之选。

And if we can solve the problems for EPA,

如果我们连东帕罗奥图的 问题都解决了，

we could apply those solutions to other eastside communities.

那么其它东部城市， 都可以参照这个方法。

If you think about it, it's actually a massive investment opportunity

如果你仔细考虑，这其实 是个巨大的投资机会，

and an opportunity to drive policy change and philanthropy.

还能促进政策改革和慈善事业。

But at the core, it's this fundamental design principle,

但其核心就在于 这个设计的根本原则，

this choice of whether we're going to decide to take care of everyone.

我们是否决定照顾到每一个人。

And it's a choice we can make, loved ones.

这是我们能够做出的爱心决定。

We've got the capital.

我们有了资金，

We've got technology on our side,

还有支持我们的技术，

and it keeps getting better.

而且这些技术日新月异。

We've got some of the best entrepreneurs in the world in this building

在这栋大楼里，在这些城市里，

and in these communities right now.

我们能找到世界上最优秀的企业家。

But the fundamental question is: What are we designing for?

但根本问题是：我们是为谁设计？

More haves and have-nots? More disparity?

是那“无所不有”还是“一无所有”的一边？ 是要继续扩大这个差距，

Or parity,

还是减小这个差距？

the choice to come together.

是时候让大家齐心协力了。

Because the reality is, this is not the industrial era.

因为现实是，工业时代 已经一去不复返。

We don't live in the era of legal segregation.

我们再也不是生活在 种族隔离合法的年代了。

So the punchline is, there is no wrong side of the tracks.

总而言之，轨道两边不应该有贫富之分。

And all I'm saying is,

我想说的只是，

we should design our economy and our communities with that in mind.

我们在制定经济政策和设计城市时， 都要时刻铭记那个原则。

Thank you.

谢谢。

(Applause)

（掌声）