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

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Helen Chang

I came to talk about first principles

我來談的是基本原則

and communities that I love --

以及我所愛的社區——

especially East Palo Alto, California,

特別是加州的東帕羅奧圖，

which is full of amazing people.

那裡有好多很棒的人。

It's also a community that's oddly separated

穿過矽谷的 101 號公路

by the 101 freeway that runs through Silicon Valley.

把這個社區以很奇怪的 方式分割開來。

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

在帕羅奧圖，這條公路的西邊 是「擁有」的一邊，

on just about any dimension you can think of:

幾乎任何你能想出的面向都是：

education, income, access to water.

教育、收入、供水。

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

在公路的東邊則是「沒有」的一邊。

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

即使你不知道東帕羅奧圖，

you might know the story of eastside disparity,

你可能也有聽過東區差距的故事，

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

不論是被火車鐵軌分開的東匹茲堡，

or the Grosse Pointe Gate in East Detroit

或是東底特律的葛洛斯波因特門，

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

或是東聖路易斯、 東奧克蘭、東費城。

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

為什麼處在社會、經濟， 及環境邊緣的社區，

tend to be on the east sides of places?

通常都會在一個地方的東區？

Turns out,

結果發現，

it's the wind.

原因是風。

If you look at the Earth from the North Pole,

如果從北極來看地球，

you'd see that it rotates counterclockwise.

看到的地球是逆時鐘方向轉動的。

The impact of this

這所造成的影響

is that the winds in the northern and the southern hemispheres

是北半球和南半球的風

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

隨著地球轉動的方向吹——

to the east.

向東吹。

A way to think about this is:

可以這樣想：

imagine you're sitting around a campfire.

想像你坐在營火旁邊。

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

你得要讓十個人坐在這裡， 且要讓每個人都能溫暖。

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

問題是：誰要坐在下風處 被煙吹得滿臉？

And the answer is:

答案是：

people with less power.

比較沒有權力的人。

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

在城市中發生的就是 這種營火動態關係，

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

不僅是在美國，全世界都一樣：

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

東倫敦，巴黎的東區也是如此；

East Jerusalem.

東耶路撒冷。

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

甚至是延著我們現在 所在地的這條街，

the marginalized community is East Vancouver.

被邊緣化的社區是東溫哥華。

I'm not the only one to notice this.

並不是只有我注意到這現象。

I nerded on this hard, for years.

多年來，我像怪胎一樣 投入研究這現象。

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

我終於找到在英國 有一個經濟歷史學家團體

who modeled industrial-era smokestack dispersion.

他們針對工業時代的 煙囪散佈建立了模型。

And they came to the same conclusion mathematically

他們在數學上得到的結論，

和我這個人類學者得到的結論一樣，

that I'd come to as an anthropologist,

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

也就是：風和污染會造成 被邊緣化的社區向東移。

The dominant logic of the industrial era

在工業時代，主流的邏輯

is about disparity.

就是差距。

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

重點是「擁有」和「沒有」， 且那已經變成我們文化的一部分。

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

那就是為什麼當我說某人 來自「軌道劣勢的那一邊」，

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

你們都很清楚我在說的是什麼。

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

那個句子的由來，就是火車冒的 骯髒黑煙被風吹動的方向——

to the east, usually.

通常是向東吹。

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

我的意思並不是每個 東邊的社區都是邊緣社區，

or every community on the margin is in the east,

也不是說每個邊緣社區都在東邊，

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

但我想要強調的是刻意造成的差距。

So if you find yourself talking about any cardinal direction

所以，如果你發現 你在談論一條公路、

of a freeway, a river, some train tracks,

一條河、火車鐵軌的根本方向時，

you're talking about an eastside community.

你其實就是在談論東邊的社區。

Now, the wind is obviously a natural phenomenon.

很明顯，風是種自然現象。

But the human design decisions that we make to separate ourselves

但人類設計來自我分離的決定

is not natural.

並不自然。

Consider the fact that every eastside community in the United States

想想看，在美國的每一個東邊社區

was built during the era of legal segregation.

都是在依法進行 種族隔離的時代建造的。

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

顯然在設計時，我們根本 不會考量每個人的利益，

so we ended up dealing with issues like redlining.

結果就是我們得處理像 拒絕貸款標準這類的議題。

This is where the government literally created maps

政府真的就是造出地圖，

to tell bankers where they shouldn't lend.

來告訴銀行家不要借錢給哪裡的人。

These are some of those actual maps.

這些都是真正的地圖。

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

你們可以注意到，紅色部分都傾向

on the east sides of these cities.

聚集在這些城市的東區。

Those financial design decisions became a self-fulfilling prophecy:

那些財務計畫的決策 成了自我實現的預言：

no loans turned into low property tax base

沒有貸款，形成了低財產稅基，

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

導致了更糟糕的學校 和準備不足的勞動力，

and -- lo and behold -- lower incomes.

以及——你看哪——較低的收入。

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

那就表示你不可能取得貸款資格。

Just a vicious downward spiral.

這是個惡性向下的漩渦。

And that's just the case with lending.

那還只是借款的例子。

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

我們在許多其他議題上 也做出了類似的惡意決策，

from water infrastructure

從水的基礎建設，

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

到我們決定要在哪裡開設 雜貨店或酒精飲料店，

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

或甚至我們為誰 及如何設計和投資科技產品。

Collectively, this list of harms

總的來說，這張傷害清單

is the artifact of our more primitive selves.

就是我們原始自我的加工品。

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

我不認為我們希望後世 對我們的印象就是這樣，

but this is basically what we've been doing

但基本上這就是過去這個世紀

to eastside communities for the last century.

我們一直在對東邊社區所做的事。

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

好消息是，可以不用如此。

We got ourselves into this eastside dilemma

我們因為不好的計畫 而讓我們自己陷入

through bad design,

這東區的兩難當中，

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

所以我們可以用好的計畫來解決。

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

我相信，好的計畫的 第一條原則其實很簡單：

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

我們得要承諾， 真正為每個人的利益著想。

So, remember the campfire metaphor.

還記得營火的比喻吧？

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

如果我們想讓每個人都受益， 也許我們坐成馬蹄形就好，

so nobody gets the smoke in their face.

就沒有人會坐在 會被煙吹到的地方了。

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

我得要針對中產階級化的人補充一點，

because the point of this image is not to say

因為這張圖片的重點並不是要說

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

你能夠滾進東邊的社區， 把擋路的人們趕走，

因為你不能。

because you don't.

(Applause)

（掌聲）

But the point is,

但，重點是，

if you start with this first principle of benefiting everyone,

如果你開始採用這第一條原則， 讓每個人受益，

then elegant solutions may become more obvious than you assume.

那麼文雅的解決方案會比 你想像的還要更明顯。

What are the elegant solutions to close this gap

要用怎樣的文雅解決方案來縮小

between Palo Alto and East Palo Alto in Silicon Valley?

矽谷的帕羅奧圖 與東帕羅奧圖之間的差距？

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

我覺得從東帕羅奧圖 開始會比較有機會。

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

它位在矽谷的中間，

創新與財富創造的集中地。

and wealth creation.

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

若我們能為某個地方解決 這個問題，這裡最有可能。

And if we can solve the problems for EPA,

若我們能為東帕羅奧圖解決問題，

we could apply those solutions to other eastside communities.

我們就能把那些解決方案 用在其他的東邊社區上。

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

想想看，它其實是個 很巨大的投資機會，

and an opportunity to drive policy change and philanthropy.

也是個推動政策改變和慈善的機會。

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

但在它的核心，其實就是 這條基礎的計畫原則，

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

決定我們是否要照顧 每個人的這個選擇。

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

鄉親啊，我們能做出這個選擇。

We've got the capital.

我們有資本。

We've got technology on our side,

科技也站在我們這一邊，

and it keeps getting better.

且變得越來越好。

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

一些世上最棒的企業家

現在就在這棟大樓裡、這社區中。

and in these communities right now.

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

但，最根本的問題是： 我們要計畫什麼？

More haves and have-nots? More disparity?

更多的「擁有」和「沒有」， 更多的差距？

Or parity,

或沒有差距，

the choice to come together.

選擇要團結在一起？

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

因為現實是，現在不是工業時代。

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

我們不生活在 依法進行種族隔離的時代。

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

所以最妙的結語是 軌道沒有劣勢的一邊。

And all I'm saying is,

我想要說的是，

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

我們在計畫經濟和社區的時候， 都不能忘記這一點。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）