This line shows how many months it would take

這一行顯示了它將需要多少個月

for the current supply of housing to run out.

為目前的住房供應耗盡。

It's a measure of housing supply and it's been dropping for a decade.

這是一個衡量住房供應的標準，十年來一直在下降。

And this line shows how housing prices have changed.

而這條線顯示了住房價格的變化情況。

They've skyrocketed in the past year.

在過去的一年裡，它們已經暴漲了。

For rental units, the percentage of empty buildings is the lowest it's been in 3 decades

對於租賃組織、部門來說，空樓的比例是30年來的最低。

while rent prices keep going up.

而租金價格不斷上漲。

But here's the thing.

但事情是這樣的。

Often, when new buildings go up in these places

通常，當這些地方的新建築拔地而起時

people hate them.

人們討厭他們。

"It's hard to describe... but...

"這很難描述...但是...。

you know it when you see it."

當你看到它時，你就知道了。"

"Gentrification building."

"紳士化的建築"。

Most often, they're talking about new buildings like this:

大多數情況下，他們談論的是像這樣的新建築。

boxy, modern, multi-family homes.

方形的、現代的、多家庭的住宅。

I saw one one day that sort of hit me.

有一天我看到一個人，有點打擊我。

And it was a TikTok that was showing this building in Camden, New Jersey.

這是一個TikTok，顯示的是新澤西州卡姆登的這座建築。

That's Jerusalem Demsas, a Vox policy reporter.

這是Vox政策記者Jerusalem Demsas的講話。

You know, the comments range from a bunch of different things.

你知道，評論的範圍是一堆不同的東西。

It was people kind of deriding the building itself

這是人們對建築本身的一種嘲笑

saying that it was causing displacement

說它正在造成流離失所

saying, get ready for a Starbucks to come and pop up.

說，準備好迎接星巴克的到來和彈出。

Comments like this are a common narrative.

像這樣的評論是一種常見的敘述。

To many, these buildings don't just look bland and artificial.

對許多人來說，這些建築不只是看起來平淡無奇，而且是人造的。

They signal raised rents, displacement, and

它們預示著租金的提高、流離失所和

the complete transformation of a neighborhood

徹底改變一個社區

to a place that's richer and whiter.

到一個更富有和更白的地方。

But in this case, what happened next might surprise you.

但在這種情況下，接下來發生的事情可能會讓你吃驚。

So I started like, kind of like, going around

所以我開始像，有點像，到處去找

trying to find the specific location, walking around Google Maps.

試圖找到具體位置，在谷歌地圖上走來走去。

And eventually, I find it.

而最終，我找到了它。

And I find the building, I look at the address.

我找到了那棟樓，我看了看地址。

I look into property records to figure out what this building was.

我查了房產記錄，想弄清楚這棟樓是什麼。

And not only is it new housing, it's actually new affordable housing.

而且不僅是新的住房，它實際上是新的可負擔住房。

Turns out, there's a lot we get wrong

事實證明，我們有很多地方是錯誤的

about how we see new construction in the US.

關於我們如何看待美國的新建築。

Whether it's DC, Oakland, or Austin

無論是華盛頓、奧克蘭，還是奧斯汀

newer apartment buildings in the US have a distinct look

美國較新的公寓樓有一個獨特的外觀

one that sticks out against older architecture.

一個在老式建築中顯得很突出。

But these buildings don't look like historic homes for a reason.

但這些建築看起來不像歷史上的房屋是有原因的。

This building is actually one of the cheapest ways

這座建築實際上是最便宜的方式之一

to build an apartment building right now.

現在要建一棟公寓樓。

The design is strategic.

設計是戰略性的。

According to reporting from Curbed

根據Curbed的報道

this kind of architecture is built to fit within restraints

這種建築是為了適應限制條件而建造的

like cost, height limits, and safety requirements.

如成本、高度限制和安全要求。

It's why many of these structures are what's known as “5-over-1” or “1-plus-5”.

這就是為什麼許多這樣的結構被稱為 "5+1 "或 "1+5"。

That means there's several levels of wood-framed construction

這意味著有幾個層次的木結構建築

which usually contain apartments and is known as Type 5 in building code.

其中通常包含公寓，在建築規範中被稱為5類。

That's over one level with a concrete base

那是超過一層的混凝土基礎

which usually contains commercial space or parking, known as Type 1.

其中通常包含商業空間或停車場，被稱為1類。

The light-frame wood construction, flat windows, and paneling around the building

輕型木結構，平窗，以及建築周圍的鑲板。

are all ways to build as affordably as possible.

都是儘可能經濟實惠的建設方式。

And that means you're able to build more affordable housing.

而這意味著你能夠建造更多的可負擔住房。

I think a lot of the time people don't understand that

我認為很多時候人們並不瞭解

in order to get affordable housing, the actual components of the building have to be

為了獲得經濟適用房，建築的實際組成部分必須是

cheap to develop and to construct.

開發和建設的成本很低。

The results can be bland and look artificial

其結果可能是平淡無奇的，看起來是人造的

but that authenticity problem is an old one.

但這個真實性問題是一個老問題。

In this book, "The Invention of Brownstone Brooklyn"

在這本名為 "布魯克林褐石的發明 "的書中

Suleiman Osman writes about the iconic brownstones of Brooklyn

蘇萊曼-奧斯曼寫道："布魯克林的標誌性褐石建築

a design that today, is widely considered to be deeply authentic to New York.

這種設計在今天被廣泛認為是對紐約的深刻認可。

But in the 19th century, compared to the mostly wooden homes which predated them

但在19世紀，與之前的大部分木製房屋相比

critics actually dismissed brownstones as "modern and artificial”.

批評者實際上將褐砂石斥為 "現代和人工"。

They called them out as “products of the mechanical age”

他們稱他們是 "機械時代的產物"

”poorly built and subject to decay” with a “dehumanizing monotony”.

"建築品質差，容易腐爛"，有一種 "非人性化的單調感"。

Sound familiar?

聽起來很熟悉吧？

Comments in a lot of those Tik Tok videos, they say things like,

在很多那些Tik Tok視頻中的評論，他們說的是這樣的話。

"Oh, it looks mass-produced. They look phony."

"哦，它看起來是大規模生產的。他們看起來很假。"

I mean, that's literally the exact same language that was being used

我的意思是，這與之前使用的語言完全相同。

in the 1900s to talk about the brownstones.

在20世紀的時候，談起了布朗斯通。

That building we mentioned earlier in Camden, New Jersey

我們之前提到的位於新澤西州卡姆登的那座建築

was built using low-income housing tax credits.

是使用低收入住房稅收抵免而建造的。

It has 245 units, geared towards seniors

它有245個單元，面向老年人。

and families making less than 60 percent of the area's median income.

和收入低於該地區收入中位數60%的家庭。

It's easy to see why the construction of affordable housing like this is a good thing

不難看出，為什麼建造這樣的經濟適用房是一件好事。

but what about the new, market rate buildings that service middle and higher-income people?

但那些為中高收入人群服務的新的、市場價格的建築呢？

They've come to symbolize displacement.

他們已經開始象徵著流離失所。

Or the idea that existing residents could be forced, involuntarily, to move out.

或者說，現有的居民可能會被強迫，非自願地搬走。

Often for reasons like rent increases or eviction.

通常是由於房租上漲或被驅逐等原因。

Since developers like to build in places where prices are already rising

由於開發商喜歡在房價已經上漲的地方建房

new buildings tend to correlate with those increased rents and displacement.

新建築往往與這些增加的租金和流離失所相關。

But a growing number of researchers have tried to find out whether these new buildings

但越來越多的研究人員試圖找出這些新建築是否

are the cause of displacement.

是流離失所的原因。

They were testing “the demand effect”

他們正在測試 "需求效應"。

or the idea that the new buildings increase demand for the neighborhood

或認為新建築增加了對附近的需求

which in turn causes rent hikes that force people to leave.

這反過來又導致租金上漲，迫使人們離開。

But the research suggests the opposite.

但研究表明情況恰恰相反。

An overwhelming “supply effect”.

一個壓倒性的 "供應效應"。

Where increasing the supply of new buildings

在增加新建築的供應方面

even if they are market rate

即使它們是市場價格

made housing less scarce and decreased rents and risks of displacement

降低了住房的稀缺性，減少了租金和流離失所的風險

especially in the areas closest to the new buildings.

特別是在最靠近新建築的地區。

New housing freed up space within a neighborhood

新的住房釋放了社區內的空間

for new residents to move in without taking up existing homes.

在不佔用現有房屋的情況下，讓新居民搬進來。

And it also meant when they moved from theirpast homes

這也意味著，當他們從過去的家搬走時

they freed up housing units in those neighborhoods as well.

他們在這些社區也騰出了住房單元。

But here's the thing:

但事情是這樣的。

less displacement was happening near new construction

新建築附近發生的流離失所現象較少

but it didn't necessarily mean less gentrification was happening.

但這並不一定意味著發生的紳士化程度降低。

Because gentrification and displacement aren't the same thing.

因為紳士化和流離失所並不是一回事。

While displacement happens to people, gentrification happens to a place.

遷移發生在人身上，而紳士化則發生在一個地方。

When an area experiences demographic change

當一個地區經歷人口變化時

typically going from lower income tenants to higher income ones

通常從低收入的租戶到高收入的租戶

shown here in the darker green.

這裡顯示為較深的綠色。

Over time, demographic shifts in the neighborhood could still occur

隨著時間的推移，附近地區的人口變化仍可能發生

not because existing residents were displaced

不是因為現有的居民被驅逐

but for other reasons: maybe people decided to move to more desirable neighborhoods

但由於其他原因：也許人們決定搬到更理想的社區

or some passed away.

或有些人去世了。

And the research suggests when that happened

而研究表明，當這種情況發生時

residents were more likely to be replaced by richer people.

居民更有可能被更富有的人取代。

Meaning gentrification was happening, but without forced displacement.

意味著紳士化正在發生，但沒有強迫流離失所。

So, to reduce both displacement and gentrification

是以，為了減少流離失所和城市化的發生

you need more market rate and affordable housing

你需要更多的市場價格和經濟適用房

like that building in New Jersey.

像新澤西州的那座建築。

Affordable housing, along with policies like rental assistance

負擔得起的住房，以及租金援助等政策

preserve income diversity, making sure those with lower incomes

保持收入的多樣性，確保那些收入較低的人

can always live in a particular neighborhood.

可以一直住在一個特定的社區。

If there is a scarcity of a product, we know this in every market:

如果一個產品存在稀缺性，我們在每個市場都知道這一點。

when there is not enough of something, the only people who get anything are rich people.

當某樣東西不夠用時，唯一能得到東西的人就是富人。

And so you have to make sure that there's enough for everyone at every level.

是以，你必須確保每個層次的人都有足夠的數量。

But there's one very big obstacle to building housing for everyone, everywhere.

但是，在為每個人、每個地方建造住房方面有一個非常大的障礙。

Wealthy neighborhoods across the US are really good at blocking new housing developments.

美國各地的富人區在阻撓新的住房開發方面確實很有一套。

Take a look at this map of New Haven, Connecticut

看看這張康涅狄格州紐黑文市的地圖吧

compared to the nearby, wealthier town of Woodbridge, Connecticut.

與附近較富裕的康涅狄格州木橋鎮相比。

When we take a look at local zoning laws and where multi-family developments

當我們看一下當地的分區法律和多家庭發展的地方時

are allowed in these areas.

允許在這些地區使用。

There's virtually no land in Woodbridge zoned for them.

在Woodbridge幾乎沒有為它們劃定的土地。

Single-family zoning laws block the vast majority of apartments

單一家庭區劃法阻止了絕大多數的公寓

or affordable housing in this area.

或者在這個地區的可負擔住房。

When you have political power concentrated in the hands of very few wealthy homeowners

當你的政治權力集中在極少數富有的房主手中時

and they say, "We're not going to allow housing here."

而他們說，"我們不會允許這裡有住房"。

Of course, there's going to be an unequal distribution of housing.

當然，會出現住房分配不均的情況。

In 2020, after a 4-unit multi-family building was proposed in Woodbridge

2020年，在伍德布里奇提出一個4個單元的多戶建築後

a group of residents even created these flyers saying “Do we want this next door?”

一群居民甚至製作了這些傳單，說 "我們希望隔壁有這個嗎？"

Pitting single-family homes against multi-family buildings.

將單戶住宅與多戶建築對立起來。

And this kind of conflict happens everywhere

而這種衝突到處都在發生

from Woodbridge, to Soho, to San Francisco.

從木橋，到蘇荷，到舊金山。

In some places, activists have found a way to use the language of gentrification

在一些地方，活動人士已經找到了一種使用城市化語言的方法

against changing zoning laws.

反對改變分區法。

For example, in response to a proposed California bill

例如，針對加利福尼亞州的一項擬議法案

pushing for more housing near areas with transit

推動在有交通的地區附近建造更多的住房

including a specific percentage of affordable housing

包括特定比例的可負擔住房

a group called Livable California said

一個名為 "宜居加州 "的組織說

building more housing would add “jet fuel to a gentrification crisis.”

興建更多的住房將為 "紳士化危機添加噴氣燃料"。

They see the power of this rhetoric

他們看到了這種言辭的力量

and they are using it as a tool to muddle the debate to make it seem like

他們把它作為一個工具來混淆辯論，使其看起來像

building new housing is actually going to create displacement

建設新的住房實際上會造成流離失所

when we know what creates displacement

當我們知道是什麼造成了流離失所

is not building new housing.

是不建設新的住房。

That's what's so kind of dangerous about this entire debate.

這就是這整個辯論的危險之處。

We have gotten to a place where the actual policy solution

我們已經到了一個地方，實際的政策解決方案

is seen as part of the problem.

被認為是問題的一部分。