What if the poor were part of city planning? | Smruti Jukur Johari

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Tammy Yuting Chiang

What is our imagery of cities?

我們想像中的城市是什麼樣子？

When we imagine cities,

當我們想到「城市」時，

we often imagine it to be something like this.

我們通常會有這種聯想。

But what if what you're looking at is just half a picture,

但，如果各位看到的並不是全貌，

but there is a city within the city.

事實上還有「城中之城」呢？

This part of the city is often seen as slums,

城市中的這個部分 通常被視為貧民窟、

squatters, informal,

非法住屋、非正式社區，

and people living here are called illegal, informal,

住在這裡的人，通常 被視為非法、非正式，

criminals, beneficiaries, supplicants, etc.

罪犯、受惠者、乞討者等等。

But in reality,

但，在現實中，

these are poor people with no choices.

他們是沒有選擇權的窮人。

Poverty is a vicious cycle.

貧窮是個惡性循環。

If born poor, it can take three or more generations

如果出生就貧窮，可能要花 三個以上的世代才能擺脫。

to escape one.

Many are forced in this cycle without choices,

許多人被迫待在這個 循環中，別無選擇，

to live on pavements,

住在人行道上、

along train tracks,

火車軌道邊、

in dumping grounds,

垃圾場裡、

along rivers,

河邊、

swamps and many such unlivable spaces,

沼澤，以及許多這類 不宜居住的空間，

without clean water, toilets or housing.

沒有乾淨用水、廁所或住屋。

But these places are not unfamiliar to me,

但這些地方對我來說並不陌生，

because since the age of six, I accompanied my father, a doctor,

因為我從六歲開始就 陪著身為醫生的爸爸

who treated patients in the slums of Bombay.

在孟買的貧民窟治療病人。

Growing up, I would help him carry his bag of medicines

成長過程中，我下課後都會去 幫他背裝滿藥品的袋子——

after school lessons --

I loved doing that.

我很愛這麼做。

Wanting to do something about these habitats,

我想要為這些地方做點什麼，

I decided to become an architect.

我決定成為建築師。

But quite early on, I realized

但，我很早就了解到

that the beauty of architecture was only for the rich.

建築之美只屬於有錢人的世界。

So I decided to do urban planning

所以我決定去做都市規劃，

and joined an NGO in India that works with the urban poor

加入一個印度非政府組織， 和都市窮人合作，

who organize themselves to access basic services,

這些窮人組成自發性 團體爭取基本服務，

such as water, sanitation and housing, for the poor living in cities.

比如用水、衛生、住屋， 讓窮人能在城市中生活。

Now I spent 10 years of my life in professional education, in learning,

我的人生中，花了十年時間

在專業教育與學習上，

and then five years in unlearning it.

接著再花五年把學過的都忘掉。

Because I realized

因為我了解到，

that all my training in architecture, design and planning

我受過的所有建築、 設計、規劃相關訓練

failed ground realities.

跟現實非常脫節。

And this is where I learned the power of choice.

此時，我學到了選擇的力量。

I unlearned many things,

我拋開許多過去所學，

but there are two myths about the poor

但有兩個關於窮人的迷思

that I would like to share that we live with.

與我們息息相關， 我想要跟大家分享。

The first myth is a perception

第一個迷思是在人們的理解中，

that migration of poor people into cities is a problem.

窮人移入城市是一種問題。

Is migration really a choice?

遷移真的是一個選擇嗎？

My mentor Sheela Patel

我的恩師希拉帕特爾

asked to those who think of this as a problem,

問過那些認為窮人遷移 是個問題的人，

"Go ask your grandfather where he came from," she says.

她說：「去問問你的祖父， 他從哪裡來。」

So what do poor people do when they migrate in cities?

當窮人遷入城市時， 他們會做什麼？

Let me share an example.

讓我舉個例子。

This is the Mumbai International Airport.

這是孟買國際機場。

All that you see in blue are large informal settlements around it.

各位看到藍色的區域是 它周圍的非正式社區。

Close to 75,000 people live here.

大約有七萬五千個人住在這裡。

So who are these people that work silently in hotels, restaurants,

所以，這些人是誰？

他們默默在飯店、餐廳工作，

as laborers, babysitters, house helps

擔任勞工、褓姆、家庭幫傭，

and countless other jobs

及無數其他工作，

that we need for cities to function without a glitch?

都是使城市能順利運作 不可或缺的工作。

And where do they live?

他們住在哪裡？

In most cities, they live in slums.

在大部分的城市裡， 他們都住在貧民區。

So let us think again.

讓我們再想一次。

Do we want poor people to stop migrating in our cities?

我們真的希望窮人別再 遷入我們的城市嗎？

What if they had a choice of not to?

如果他們能選擇不要遷入呢？

The second myth is my personal experience.

第二個迷思是我的個人經驗。

It's this attitude that we professionals know better.

也就是我們專業人士 懂比較多的這種態度。

We professionals love to make choices for others,

我們喜歡為他人做選擇，

especially for the poor.

特別是為窮人。

Let me share an experience.

讓我分享一段經歷。

In a workshop that looked at designing 250 new houses for poor families

有一個研討會計劃設計 兩百五十間新住屋

給住在附近貧民區的貧困家庭。

from a slum nearby,

there were different building materials that were presented,

研討會上提出不同的建材，

ranging from papier-mâché, cardboard, honeycomb, etc.,

從混凝紙漿、紙板、蜂巢等都有，

simply because they were affordable.

只因為這些是負擔得起的建材。

But there was this one idea that was of shipping containers.

但有一個點子，是運輸用的貨櫃。

Now we immediately approved of it,

我們馬上同意用它，

because we thought it was sustainable, scalable, affordable.

因為我們認為它比較耐用、 可擴展、負擔得起。

But during this presentation,

但，在這次簡報中，

a lady from the slum humbly spoke up.

有位來自貧民區的 女士謙虛地發聲。

And she asked the presenter,

她問簡報的講者：

"Would you choose to live in it?"

「你會選擇住在這裡面嗎？」

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

"If not, then why did you think we would?"

「如果你不會，那你 為什麼認為我們會？」

Now this was a personal unlearning moment for me,

在這一刻，我學到必須 拋開過去所學，

where I realized that poverty only changes affordability --

我了解到，貧窮只影響了 他們能負擔多少——

it does not change aspirations.

並沒有影響他們的抱負。

Now poor people have lived in temporary structures all their life.

窮人一生都住在暫時性建築中。

They go from wall to wall,

他們從一面牆換到另一面牆， 從磚塊屋搬到錫屋。

moving from bricks to tin.

They move from building from bamboo,

他們從竹子、防水布、 塑膠所搭建的建築

tarpaulin sheets, plastic, to cardboard, to tin,

搬到紙板、錫做的建築，

to bricks and cement,

再到磚屋、水泥屋，就像我們一樣。

just like the way we do.

So somewhere here, we were forcing our choices on them.

某種程度上，我們把我們的 選擇強加給他們。

So should we force our choices on them,

我們應該強迫他們採納我們的選擇，

or should we broaden their choices?

還是拓展出更多選擇給他們？

Now what if the opportunity to choose was given to people?

如果給予人們選擇的機會呢？

These are women who lived on the pavements of a neighborhood in Mumbai.

這些女子住在一個孟買 當地社區的人行道上。

Now they faced constant evictions, and in response to it,

她們經常遭到驅逐， 而她們的因應方式是

they organized a women's network called Mahila Milan.

組織一個女性互助組織， 叫做瑪西拉米蘭。

Not only did they fight against evictions with those in power,

她們不只對抗掌權者的驅逐、

saved money and bought land,

存錢、買地，

but they also designed and helped construct their own houses.

她們還設計並協助建造 她們自己的房子。

Well, these were illiterate women, so how did they do that?

這些女性都不識字， 她們怎麼辦到的？

They used floor mats and saris to understand measurements.

她們用地墊和莎麗來做度量。

A sari is four meters in length and 1.5 meters in width.

一件莎麗是四公尺長、一公尺半寬。

They used these simple day-to-day items to demonstrate house models.

她們用這些日常物品 來展示房屋模型。

And even they made three options to choose from

她們甚至做了三個選項供選擇，

and invited all their fellow residents to come and have a look.

並邀請她們的鄰居來參觀。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

And everybody loved this option that had a loft in it,

大家都喜歡這個有閣樓的選項，

simply because it did two things.

只因為它有兩個特點。

One is that it accommodated larger families to sleep in.

第一，它能讓更大的 家庭睡在裡面。

And two, it allowed home-based work,

第二，它適合做家庭代工，

such as bangle-making, jewelry-designing,

比如做手鐲、設計珠寶、

embroidery-stitching, packaging items, etc.

刺繡、包裝物品等等。

Now they also decided to not have a toilet inside,

他們也決定裡面不要有廁所，

but instead have it outside in the corridors,

但要把廁所設在外面的走廊上，

simply because it gave them more space and it was cheaper.

因為這樣有更多空間，也比較便宜。

Now, professionals could have never thought

專業人士絕對不會想到

of something like that.

這些考量。

A formal design would have necessitated to have a toilet inside.

在正式的設計中， 屋內一定要有廁所。

Now these are smaller examples --

這些都是比較小的例子——

let me share some larger context:

讓我分享一些更大的情境：

881,000,000 people --

八億八千一百萬人——

that's about one sixth of this world, as we talk here --

約是目前世界人口的六分之一——

are living in slums and informal settlements.

住在貧民區及非正式的居住地。

Almost every city in the global south has large slums in the size of townships.

幾乎南半球的每個城市中

都有跟小鎮一樣大的大型貧民區。

Kibera, in Nairobi,

奈洛比有基貝拉，

Dharavi, in Mumbai,

孟買有達拉維，

Khayelitsha in South Africa, just a few.

南非有卡雅利沙， 這只是幾個例子。

Now initially, they were all on waste and abandoned lands

一開始，它們都位在 垃圾場和廢棄土地上，

that cities were never interested in.

都是城市不感興趣的地方。

As cities grew,

隨著城市成長，

poor people started building on these lands

窮人開始在這些土地上建設，

and brought value to this over time.

漸漸地，這些土地有了價值。

And today, these lands have become real estate hot spots

現今，這些土地變成 房地產的搶手地點，

that everybody wants a piece of.

人人都想要分一杯羹。

So how do cities and those in power choose to deal with them?

所以，城市和掌權者 選擇如何處理它們？

They demolish them and evict them

他們採取拆除並驅逐居民，

and move them away from their cities and economies

迫使他們搬離他們的城市和經濟，

in order to build a new infrastructure.

只為了建造新的基礎建設。

They move them into vertical housing,

他們把這些居民搬到垂直的住宅中，

which in reality looks like this.

在現實中看起來是這樣的。

Now when built in high densities,

如此高密度的建築

they lack natural light and ventilation,

缺乏天然光且通風不佳，

and it often leads to unhealthy conditions.

常會形成不健康的環境。

Now, on one hand,

一方面，

poor people are not involved in the participation of design,

窮人並沒有參與設計，

and there is poor quality of construction.

且建造的品質很糟糕。

And on the other hand,

另一方面，

they do not understand how to do maintenance,

他們不知道如何維護，

you know, keeping bills, keeping records, forming societies --

比如，保留帳單、保留記錄、 組織社群——

this is always difficult for them.

這對他們來說一向很困難。

And being forced to move into this formal society,

他們被迫搬到這種正式住宅，

they end up looking like this in a few years.

幾年內，他們就會變成這樣。

Because formalization is not a product,

因為正式化並不是一種 產物，是一種過程。

it's a process.

Moving from informal to formal for poor people is a journey.

對窮人來說，從非正式 到正式是一趟旅程。

It takes time to accept and adapt.

要花時間接受和適應。

And when that choice is not given,

沒有選擇時，

it becomes like this,

就會變成這樣，

which I'm afraid, in future, these would become the slums.

將來，這些地方恐怕 就會變成貧民窟。

Now instead of doing this,

如果我們不這麼做， 改成提供住屋給窮人，

what if we accommodated poor people

and gave them a choice to be a part of our cities

讓他們選擇成為我們城市的一部分，

and develop them where they are,

協助他們開發居住地，

giving them basic services, like in this picture?

提供他們基本建設， 就像這張照片？

Now what happens if cities and governments could work together,

想想這樣會如何： 如果城市和政府能合作，

if governments acknowledge poor people,

如果政府承認窮人，

and they could build it together?

他們能夠一起做建設？

This is Mukuru.

這是穆庫魯。

It's a large informal settlement in Nairobi.

它是奈洛比的大型非正式居住地。

It's one of the largest settlements in Africa.

它是非洲最大的居住地。

It's home to 300,000 people

有三十萬人住在

living over 650 acres of land.

那片超過六百五十英畝的土地上。

To help us understand that scale,

它的規模可以比擬成

it's like squeezing the population of Pittsburgh

將匹茲堡的人口擠到 紐約中央公園裡面。

into the New York Central Park.

That's Mukuru.

那就是穆庫魯。

So to give us a glimpse,

讓大家看一下，

this is the condition of housing.

這個就是當地住屋的狀況。

And this is what it is in between them.

社區裡面看起來就像這樣。

So what is life in Mukuru like, just talking briefly?

簡單來說，在穆庫魯的 生活是什麼樣子？

Five hundred and fifty people use one single water tap

五百五十個人共用一個水龍頭，

and pay nine times more

要支付的費用是城市中 其他居民的九倍，

than what anybody else in the city could pay,

simply because there is no water infrastructure

只因為沒有水利基礎設施， 且水是用賣的。

and water is sold.

Many come back from work to find out that their houses do not exist,

許多人工作結束回來之後 卻發現自己的房子不見了，

because they have either been bulldozed,

房子可能被堆土機清除，

or they have been burned down.

或是被燒毀。

So, tired of this situation,

因為厭倦了這種情況，

a local slum dwellers' federation called Muungano

當地貧民窟居民的聯盟「蒙加諾」

decided to do something about it.

決定不再坐視。

In four years,

在四年間，

they organized 20,000 residents to collect data,

他們組織了兩萬名居民

來收集資料、繪製建設圖，

map structures and put it together.

再通通結合起來。

And the plan was very simple --

計畫非常簡單——

they only needed four things.

他們只有四項要求。

They wanted clean water,

他們要乾淨用水、

toilets, decent roads

廁所、像樣的道路，

and, most importantly, not to be evicted.

還有，最重要的，不要被驅逐。

So they presented this with the government of Nairobi.

他們向奈洛比政府提出這個計畫。

And for the first time in history ever,

史上頭一遭，

a city has agreed to do it.

城市同意要進行。

The city of Nairobi, the government of Kenya,

奈洛比市、肯亞政府，

declared Mukuru to be a special planning area,

宣佈穆庫魯為特別規劃區，

which means that people could come up with their own plan.

意即，該區人民可以提出 他們自己的計畫。

People could decide to come up with their own norms and standards,

該區人民可以制定出 自己的標準和規則，

because the standards that work for the formal citizens

因為適用於正式公民的標準

do not work in informal settings.

並不適用於非正式的環境。

So what does that mean, to give us an instance?

用例子來說，那是什麼意思？

If these are roads in Mukuru,

若這些是穆庫魯的道路， 各位可以看到，

you can see that there are houses along both sides of the road.

道路兩側都有房子。

Now in order to bring in a city bus,

如果要讓城市巴士進入，

as per the standards,

根據標準，

planners would have gone for a luxurious 25-meter-wide road.

規劃者必須要設計很奢侈的 二十五公尺寬道路。

Now that would mean displacing [25] percent of the structures --

那就表示 25% 的建築 會被取代掉——

that's a lot of people.

很多人會失去家園。

So instead of doing that, we came up with a 12-meter-wide road,

所以我們換了個方法， 使用十二公尺寬的道路，

which had the structures intact and brought the city bus

建築物仍保持完整，還能在

不妥協掉太多建設的情況下 引進城市巴士。

without compromising on much services.

In another instance, let's talk about community toilets.

讓我們來看另一個例子：社區廁所。

You know, in high-density areas,

在高密度的區域，

where there is no scope for individual toilets,

廁所沒有辦法設置隔間，

like the public toilets that we have here.

不能像我們的公共廁所那樣。

So we would go for a male section and a female section.

所以我們考慮區分為 男性區和女性區。

But imagine this situation.

但，試想這個情況。

In the morning rush hours to the toilet,

早上，去廁所的尖峰時段，

when everybody is in intense pressure to relieve themselves,

人人都非常急著需要解放，

and if you're standing in a queue of 50 people,

如果排隊的隊伍有五十人，

and there is a child standing behind an adult,

且有一個孩子站在一個成人後面，

who wins?

誰會贏？

Children end up squatting outside.

最後孩子就會蹲在外面上廁所。

And that's why women decided

那就是為什麼女性決定

to come up with a separate squatting area for children.

要有分開的蹲式區域給孩子專用。

Now, who could have thought of something like that?

誰會考量到這些？

The idea here is that when poor people choose,

這裡的想法是，當窮人能做選擇，

they choose better.

他們會選得比較好。

They choose what works for them.

他們能選擇對他們有用的。

So choice is everything.

所以，選擇就是一切。

And power decides choice.

而權力決定選擇。

And we need those in power --

我們需要那些掌權的人——

politicians, leaders, governments,

政治人物、領導人、政府、

architects, planners, institutions, researchers --

建築師、規劃者、制度、研究者——

and all of us in our everyday lives to respect choices.

以及我們日常生活中的所有人 都要能尊重不同的選擇。

Instead of choosing what is right for people, for the poor,

不要幫別人、幫窮人 選擇什麼是對的，

let's acknowledge and empower their choices.

我們應該認可並賦予 他們權力去做選擇。

And that is how we can build

這樣我們才能為未來

better and inclusive cities for tomorrow,

建造出更好、更包容的城市，

completing the imagery of cities

完成城市的意象，

built by the choices of its own people.

讓城市的建造立基在 居民的選擇上。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）