TED演讲：让穷人一起做城市的建设者！
贫穷是个恶性循环许，很多人被迫待在这个循环中，别无选择。目前，全世界几乎有十亿人住在非正式的小区和贫民窟中，这些地方通常都缺乏干净用水、厕所或完善道路等基础建设。
都市规划专家Smruti Jukur Johari认为政府和建筑师建设规划时，应换位思考，考虑到这些居住者的需求，倾听他们的意见，与其携手合作，而非驱逐、忽略。
贫穷影响了他们能负担多少，但并没有影响他们的抱负，让他们能够一起做城市的建设者！
What is our imagery of cities? When we imagine cities, we often imagine it to be something like this. But what if what you're looking at is just half a picture, but there is a city within the city. This part of the city is often seen as slums, squatters, informal, and people living here are called illegal, informal, criminals, beneficiaries, supplicants, etc. But in reality, these are poor people with no choices.
我们想象中的城市是什么样子？当我们想到「城市」时，我们通常会有这种联想。但，如果各位看到的并不是全貌，事实上还有「城中之城」呢？城市中的这个部分通常被视为贫民窟、非法住屋、非正式小区，住在这里的人，通常被视为非法、非正式，罪犯、受惠者、乞讨者等等。但在现实中，他们是没有选择权的穷人。
Poverty is a vicious cycle. If born poor, it can take three or more generations to escape one. Many are forced in this cycle without choices, to live on pavements, along train tracks, in dumping grounds, along rivers, swamps and many such unlivable spaces, without clean water, toilets or housing.
贫穷是个恶性循环。如果出生就贫穷，可能要花三个以上的世代才能摆脱。许多人被迫待在这个循环中，别无选择，住在人行道上、火车轨道边、垃圾场里、河边、沼泽，以及许多这类不宜居住的空间，没有干净用水、厕所或住屋。
But these places are not unfamiliar to me, because since the age of six, I accompanied my father, a doctor, who treated patients in the slums of Bombay. Growing up, I would help him carry his bag of medicines after school lessons -- I loved doing that. Wanting to do something about these habitats, I decided to become an architect.
但这些地方对我来说并不陌生，因为我从六岁开始就陪着身为医生的爸爸在孟买的贫民窟治疗病人。成长过程中，我下课后都会去帮他背装满药品的袋子——我很爱这么做。我想要为这些地方做点什么，我决定成为建筑师。
But quite early on, I realized that the beauty of architecture was only for the rich. So I decided to do urban planning and joined an NGO in India that works with the urban poor who organize themselves to access basic services, such as water, sanitation and housing, for the poor living in cities.
但，我很早就了解到建筑之美只属于有钱人的世界。所以我决定去做都市规划，加入一个印度非政府组织，和都市穷人合作，这些穷人组成自发性团体争取基本服务，比如用水、卫生、住屋，让穷人能在城市中生活。
Now I spent 10 years of my life in professional education, in learning, and then five years in unlearning it. Because I realized that all my training in architecture, design and planning failed ground realities. And this is where I learned the power of choice. I unlearned many things, but there are two myths about the poor that I would like to share that we live with.
我的人生中，花了十年时间在专业教育与学习上，接着再花五年把学过的都忘掉。因为我了解到，我受过的所有建筑、设计、规划相关训练跟现实非常脱节。此时，我学到了选择的力量。我抛开许多过去所学，但有两个关于穷人的迷思与我们息息相关，我想要跟大家分享。
The first myth is a perception that migration of poor people into cities is a problem. Is migration really a choice? My mentor Sheela Patel asked to those who think of this as a problem, "Go ask your grandfather where he came from," she says.
第一个迷思是在人们的理解中，穷人移入城市是一种问题。迁移真的是一个选择吗？我的恩师希拉帕特尔问过那些认为穷人迁移是个问题的人，她说：「去问问你的祖父，他从哪里来。」
So what do poor people do when they migrate in cities? Let me share an example. This is the Mumbai International Airport. All that you see in blue are large informal settlements around it. Close to 75,000 people live here.
当穷人迁入城市时，他们会做什么？让我举个例子。这是孟买国际机场。各位看到蓝色的区域是它周围的非正式小区。大约有七万五千个人住在这里。
So who are these people that work silently in hotels, restaurants, as laborers, babysitters, house helps and countless other jobs that we need for cities to function without a glitch? And where do they live? In most cities, they live in slums. So let us think again. Do we want poor people to stop migrating in our cities? What if they had a choice of not to?
所以，这些人是谁？他们默默在饭店、餐厅工作，担任劳工、褓姆、家庭帮佣，及无数其他工作，都是使城市能顺利运作不可或缺的工作。他们住在哪里？在大部分的城市里，他们都住在贫民区。让我们再想一次。我们真的希望穷人别再迁入我们的城市吗？如果他们能选择不要迁入呢？
The second myth is my personal experience. It's this attitude that we professionals know better. We professionals love to make choices for others, especially for the poor. Let me share an experience.
第二个迷思是我的个人经验。也就是我们专业人士懂比较多的这种态度。我们喜欢为他人做选择，特别是为穷人。让我分享一段经历。
In a workshop that looked at designing 250 new houses for poor families from a slum nearby, there were different building materials that were presented, ranging from papier-mâché, cardboard, honeycomb, etc., simply because they were affordable.
有一个研讨会计划设计两百五十间新住屋给住在附近贫民区的贫困家庭。研讨会上提出不同的建材，从混凝纸浆、纸板、蜂巢等都有，只因为这些是负担得起的建材。
But there was this one idea that was of shipping containers. Now we immediately approved of it, because we thought it was sustainable, scalable, affordable. But during this presentation, a lady from the slum humbly spoke up. And she asked the presenter, "Would you choose to live in it?"
但有一个点子，是运输用的货柜。我们马上同意用它，因为我们认为它比较耐用、可扩展、负担得起。但，在这次简报中，有位来自贫民区的女士谦虚地发声。她问简报的讲者：「你会选择住在这里面吗？」
"If not, then why did you think we would?" Now this was a personal unlearning moment for me, where I realized that poverty only changes affordability -- it does not change aspirations.
「如果你不会，那你为什么认为我们会？」在这一刻，我学到必须抛开过去所学，我了解到，贫穷只影响了他们能负担多少——并没有影响他们的抱负。
Now poor people have lived in temporary structures all their life. They go from wall to wall, moving from bricks to tin. They move from building from bamboo, tarpaulin sheets, plastic, to cardboard, to tin, to bricks and cement, just like the way we do. So somewhere here, we were forcing our choices on them. So should we force our choices on them, or should we broaden their choices?
穷人一生都住在暂时性建筑中。他们从一面墙换到另一面墙，从砖块屋搬到锡屋。他们从竹子、防水布、塑料所搭建的建筑搬到纸板、锡做的建筑，再到砖屋、水泥屋，就像我们一样。某种程度上，我们把我们的选择强加给他们。我们应该强迫他们采纳我们的选择，还是拓展出更多选择给他们？
Now what if the opportunity to choose was given to people? These are women who lived on the pavements of a neighborhood in Mumbai. Now they faced constant evictions, and in response to it, they organized a women's network called Mahila Milan.
如果给予人们选择的机会呢？这些女子住在一个孟买当地小区的人行道上。她们经常遭到驱逐，而她们的因应方式是组织一个女性互助组织，叫做玛西拉米兰。
Not only did they fight against evictions with those in power, saved money and bought land, but they also designed and helped construct their own houses. Well, these were illiterate women, so how did they do that? They used floor mats and saris to understand measurements.
她们不只对抗掌权者的驱逐、存钱、买地，她们还设计并协助建造她们自己的房子。这些女性都不识字，她们怎么办到的？她们用地垫和莎丽来做度量。
A sari is four meters in length and 1.5 meters in width. They used these simple day-to-day items to demonstrate house models. And even they made three options to choose from and invited all their fellow residents to come and have a look.
一件莎丽是四公尺长、一公尺半宽。她们用这些日常物品来展示房屋模型。她们甚至做了三个选项供选择，并邀请她们的邻居来参观。
And everybody loved this option that had a loft in it, simply because it did two things. One is that it accommodated larger families to sleep in. And two, it allowed home-based work, such as bangle-making, jewelry-designing, embroidery-stitching, packaging items, etc.
大家都喜欢这个有阁楼的选项，只因为它有两个特点。第一，它能让更大的家庭睡在里面。第二，它适合做家庭代工，比如做手镯、设计珠宝、刺绣、包装物品等等。
Now they also decided to not have a toilet inside, but instead have it outside in the corridors, simply because it gave them more space and it was cheaper. Now, professionals could have never thought of something like that. A formal design would have necessitated to have a toilet inside.
他们也决定里面不要有厕所，但要把厕所设在外面的走廊上，因为这样有更多空间，也比较便宜。专业人士绝对不会想到这些考虑。在正式的设计中，屋内一定要有厕所。
Now these are smaller examples -- let me share some larger context: 881,000,000 people -- that's about one sixth of this world, as we talk here -- are living in slums and informal settlements. Almost every city in the global south has large slums in the size of townships.
这些都是比较小的例子——让我分享一些更大的情境：八亿八千一百万人——约是目前世界人口的六分之一——住在贫民区及非正式的居住地。几乎南半球的每个城市中都有跟小镇一样大的大型贫民区。
Kibera, in Nairobi, Dharavi, in Mumbai, Khayelitsha in South Africa, just a few. Now initially, they were all on waste and abandoned lands that cities were never interested in. As cities grew, poor people started building on these lands and brought value to this over time. And today, these lands have become real estate hot spots that everybody wants a piece of.
内罗毕有基贝拉，孟买有达拉维，南非有卡雅利沙，这只是几个例子。一开始，它们都位在垃圾场和废弃土地上，都是城市不感兴趣的地方。随着城市成长，穷人开始在这些土地上建设，渐渐地，这些土地有了价值。现今，这些土地变成房地产的抢手地点，人人都想要分一杯羹。
So how do cities and those in power choose to deal with them? They demolish them and evict them and move them away from their cities and economies in order to build a new infrastructure. They move them into vertical housing, which in reality looks like this. Now when built in high densities, they lack natural light and ventilation, and it often leads to unhealthy conditions.
所以，城市和掌权者选择如何处理它们？他们采取拆除并驱逐居民，迫使他们搬离他们的城市和经济，只为了建造新的基础建设。他们把这些居民搬到垂直的住宅中，在现实中看起来是这样的。如此高密度的建筑缺乏天然光且通风不佳，常会形成不健康的环境。
Now, on one hand, poor people are not involved in the participation of design, and there is poor quality of construction. And on the other hand, they do not understand how to do maintenance, you know, keeping bills, keeping records, forming societies -- this is always difficult for them.
一方面，穷人并没有参与设计，且建造的质量很糟糕。另一方面，他们不知道如何维护，比如，保留账单、保留记录、组织社群——这对他们来说一向很困难。
And being forced to move into this formal society, they end up looking like this in a few years. Because formalization is not a product, it's a process. Moving from informal to formal for poor people is a journey. It takes time to accept and adapt. And when that choice is not given, it becomes like this, which I'm afraid, in future, these would become the slums.
他们被迫搬到这种正式住宅，几年内，他们就会变成这样。因为正式化并不是一种产物，是一种过程。对穷人来说，从非正式到正式是一趟旅程。要花时间接受和适应。没有选择时，就会变成这样，将来，这些地方恐怕就会变成贫民窟。
Now instead of doing this, what if we accommodated poor people and gave them a choice to be a part of our cities and develop them where they are, giving them basic services, like in this picture? Now what happens if cities and governments could work together, if governments acknowledge poor people, and they could build it together?
如果我们不这么做，改成提供住屋给穷人，让他们选择成为我们城市的一部分，协助他们开发居住地，提供他们基本建设，就像这张照片？想想这样会如何：如果城市和政府能合作，如果政府承认穷人，他们能够一起做建设？
This is Mukuru. It's a large informal settlement in Nairobi. It's one of the largest settlements in Africa. It's home to 300,000 people living over 650 acres of land. To help us understand that scale, it's like squeezing the population of Pittsburgh into the New York Central Park. That's Mukuru. So to give us a glimpse, this is the condition of housing. And this is what it is in between them.
这是穆库鲁。它是内罗毕的大型非正式居住地。它是非洲最大的居住地。有三十万人住在那片超过六百五十英亩的土地上。它的规模可以比拟成将匹兹堡的人口挤到纽约中央公园里面。那就是穆库鲁。让大家看一下，这个就是当地住屋的状况。小区里面看起来就像这样。
So what is life in Mukuru like, just talking briefly? Five hundred and fifty people use one single water tap and pay nine times more than what anybody else in the city could pay, simply because there is no water infrastructure and water is sold.
简单来说，在穆库鲁的生活是什么样子？五百五十个人共享一个水龙头，要支付的费用是城市中其他居民的九倍，只因为没有水利基础设施，且水是用卖的。
Many come back from work to find out that their houses do not exist, because they have either been bulldozed, or they have been burned down. So, tired of this situation, a local slum dwellers' federation called Muungano decided to do something about it.
许多人工作结束回来之后却发现自己的房子不见了，房子可能被堆土机清除，或是被烧毁。因为厌倦了这种情况，当地贫民窟居民的联盟「蒙加诺」决定不再坐视。
In four years, they organized 20,000 residents to collect data, map structures and put it together. And the plan was very simple -- they only needed four things. They wanted clean water, toilets, decent roads and, most importantly, not to be evicted.
在四年间，他们组织了两万名居民来收集资料、绘制建设图，再通通结合起来。计划非常简单——他们只有四项要求。他们要干净用水、厕所、象样的道路，还有，最重要的，不要被驱逐。
So they presented this with the government of Nairobi. And for the first time in history ever, a city has agreed to do it. The city of Nairobi, the government of Kenya, declared Mukuru to be a special planning area, which means that people could come up with their own plan. People could decide to come up with their own norms and standards, because the standards that work for the formal citizens do not work in informal settings.
他们向内罗毕政府提出这个计划。史上头一遭，城市同意要进行。内罗毕市、肯尼亚政府，宣布穆库鲁为特别规划区，意即，该区人民可以提出他们自己的计划。该区人民可以制定出自己的标准和规则，因为适用于正式公民的标准并不适用于非正式的环境。
So what does that mean, to give us an instance? If these are roads in Mukuru, you can see that there are houses along both sides of the road. Now in order to bring in a city bus, as per the standards, planners would have gone for a luxurious 25-meter-wide road.
用例子来说，那是什么意思？若这些是穆库鲁的道路，各位可以看到，道路两侧都有房子。如果要让城市巴士进入，根据标准，规划者必须要设计很奢侈的二十五公尺宽道路。
Now that would mean displacing [25] percent of the structures -- that's a lot of people. So instead of doing that, we came up with a 12-meter-wide road, which had the structures intact and brought the city bus without compromising on much services.
那就表示 25% 的建筑会被取代掉——很多人会失去家园。所以我们换了个方法，使用十二公尺宽的道路，建筑物仍保持完整，还能在不妥协掉太多建设的情况下引进城市巴士。
In another instance, let's talk about community toilets. You know, in high-density areas, where there is no scope for individual toilets, like the public toilets that we have here. So we would go for a male section and a female section. But imagine this situation.
让我们来看另一个例子：小区厕所。在高密度的区域，厕所没有办法设置隔间，不能像我们的公共厕所那样。所以我们考虑区分为男性区和女性区。但，试想这个情况。
In the morning rush hours to the toilet, when everybody is in intense pressure to relieve themselves, and if you're standing in a queue of 50 people, and there is a child standing behind an adult, who wins? Children end up squatting outside. And that's why women decided to come up with a separate squatting area for children. Now, who could have thought of something like that?
早上，去厕所的尖峰时段，人人都非常急着需要解放，如果排队的队伍有五十人，且有一个孩子站在一个成人后面，谁会赢？最后孩子就会蹲在外面上厕所。那就是为什么女性决定要有分开的蹲式区域给孩子专用。谁会考虑到这些？
The idea here is that when poor people choose, they choose better. They choose what works for them. So choice is everything. And power decides choice. And we need those in power -- politicians, leaders, governments, architects, planners, institutions, researchers -- and all of us in our everyday lives to respect choices.
这里的想法是，当穷人能做选择，他们会选得比较好。他们能选择对他们有用的。所以，选择就是一切。而权力决定选择。我们需要那些掌权的人——政治人物、领导人、政府、建筑师、规划者、制度、研究者——以及我们日常生活中的所有人都要能尊重不同的选择。
Instead of choosing what is right for people, for the poor, let's acknowledge and empower their choices. 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.
不要帮别人、帮穷人选择什么是对的，我们应该认可并赋予他们权力去做选择。这样我们才能为未来建造出更好、更包容的城市，完成城市的意象，让城市的建造立基在居民的选择上。
Thank you.
谢谢
RECOMMEND
推荐阅读410篇Ted英文演讲视频在线看，收藏！100篇美国20世纪精彩演讲（文本+MP3音频）
94部经典BBC纪录片合集，强烈推荐！
《纽约时报》年度十大好书，2019最值得看的英文书单！
54部经典经典英文名著合集，收藏贴~2010年代豆瓣十佳经典影片！全部9.0分以上（附资源）
《暮光之城》经典台词整理（附1-4部资源）
《风雨哈佛路》经典回顾：你的人生，其实早就注定了（附完整视频）