 Gweithio. As the director of an institution which is soon to be moving to the soon to be deprived west London borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the design museum, it was great to see that innovation and technology have had such an important boost today with the announcement of the silicon roundabouts apotheosis into the hub of technology in this country. Of course at the design museum we also understand design as being the way in which technology is put to work to make useful things. Cities are shaped by people, very occasionally by extraordinary individuals and this morning we should remember the passing of such an extraordinary individual, Oscar Niemeyer, the man who shaped Brasilia. But they're also shaped by ideas and by things. Zoning, for example, is an idea. A shipping container is a thing. And these things shape cities often with unintended consequences. The shipping container was invented as a low cost way of moving goods around the world and eventually it had the unintended consequence of creating Europe's second largest financial centre, Canary Wharf. Because it put out of business every upstream dock in the world. Electricity is so interesting because it's both a thing and an idea. Electricity began as valves, diodes, circuits, semiconductors, but it's also an idea about the city. A city with no slums, a clean city, a modern city, a city with no soot, a city with no underclass, where to stoke it. A modern city. Now, as Ricky hinted earlier, we could have called this session a smart city session, but I think the urban age takes a more nuanced view of the world, a subtle view, a sense that we need to remember what modern was as well as what modern will be or what modern could be. This is Harry Beck, the man who invented one of the key images of contemporary London, the underground railway map. An electric railway system charted with a graphic system which owes something to circuit diagrams. In fact, Harry Beck always claimed that he wasn't using electrical symbols to create the map, but this is something that some of his colleagues at Lund Transport did to suggest that he might have been. Now, the map is fascinating because it shapes Londoners idea of the city. It makes the city clear, it gave it a sense of its coherence and its identity, and yet also there are those who suggest that it was also a manipulative capitalist view of London in that the developers who were building at the end of the northern line could use this map to suggest that the homes they were building in edgeware were actually much closer to the centre of London than they in fact were. It's interesting to think about how the future once looked and the people who have shaped it and the ideas they had. Howard's, one could say, magnetic idea of a basically anti-urban form or Walt Disney's extraordinary contribution to the culture of urbanism with his sugar rush of congestion that was Disneyland. We can look at the ambiguous ideas that we've had about electricity. Metropolis, of course, which could be seen as an awful warning of electricity's dehumanisation, or we could see Lenin's idea of electrification of the Soviet Union as providing the wonderful new future. But the truth is we have become jaded about what the future might be. We're knowing about it. We think we have seen it all before and of course we have. And those ideas about the future have grown steadily less exciting. And our attempts, for example, in the expos of the world which are attempts to explore what the future might be, have become increasingly difficult. Even Thomas Heatherwick's remarkable efforts in Shanghai are not quite the game changes they once were. So what is changing the world? Well, as I've said before, electricity is both an idea and a thing. Electricity gave birth to a semiconductor which has had massive unintended consequences on the shape of the city. The server farms, of course, are physical things and they lead to things like the distribution warehouses that are city killers that kill high streets, that remove commerce from the city centre and relocate it somewhere which seems anti-urban in spades. We look at where people work now. This is where Jonathan Ive will one day be designing the successor to the iPad, whatever it is, in Cupertino. The address is one infinite loop, which tells us a great deal about the nature of work in the silicon world, and yet the people that work here tend to live in downtown San Francisco, a city of streets. This is Mazdar. Norman Foster's one-eyed integrated idea about an energy-saving city in the Emirati state of Abu Dhabi, a place which is a brave attempt at energy-saving, and yet which in the complex nature of life in that part of the world has most of its contribution to carbon reduction neutralised by the fact that not only does the state also stage a Formula One race, but they also use desalinated water from the Gulf to water the roadside verges of grass in that city. This is the Google idea of the city, and I think that what we have now is a rapid transition of the world from the physical one to the digital one from the analogue world of physical things which shape our memories and give us weight about the places we're in to the digital one, and what I think we need to ensure or find a way to get to groups with is to understand how we maintain those qualities of the essential aspects of, to me, the shape of the city. A city has to be a place which is both anonymous and possible to identify with. In the end, a digital city cannot be a digital village. What are the things that the digital world can give us to continue to create that sense of urbanism within this new world? A city is a place in which you need to be able to choose what you need from it and not take what you don't from it. It's a place in which you need to find what you can do and afford those things. And yet so many of the things that are being given to us by Brave New Technology are taking some of those things away. A city has to be anonymous, and yet as we know the utopian words of corporations like Google, which begin by urging us to do no evil, very quickly become all those things that are anti-urban that don't let us allow us to be what we want to be. Now we could say that phenomena like Twitter do give something of that back. One could understand Twitter as being both the democracy wall of Beijing in which people are allowed to put up posters anonymously or it could be seen as the anonymous scrollings of the bitter and the twisted. And yet now we also know that we can actually identify where they come from. So for me, this electric city needs to be a place in which we can maintain our sense of what a city is and without losing that sense of what it might be. Thank you. Thank you.