 The public hasn't got a clue what architecture is. Not a clue. We can be very obscure, modern classical musicians or poets. And yet we're the most connected to society of all the arts. We build in the city, we build under pragmatic terms, we work with developers, we work with economic situations. I don't know. And with planning boards and blah, blah, blah. And it's amazing that, especially in this country, I have to say very different than Japan and Europe, that there's kind of an ignorance, kind of a complete lack of what architecture is. And yet everyone does their compulsory European trip to look at the beauty of Europe. And I always wonder what the hell they come back with. They're looking at Europe and you think, don't they get it? They're interested in the culture of the city, and they're interested in architecture to participate. I think actually that certain buildings have very short time frameworks. It's just, I'm not sure it's a good or bad thing. It's just a thing. It just is. And it reflects the dynamicism of our cities. And you can anticipate they probably won't be libraries or city halls or institutions like this one, because there's an investment and there's already an establishment of a certain permanence that comes with the institution. But we'll think of the opposite of a town that has no new structure or no revitalization, looking at a kind of a dead town. And I would think it's much less about looking at the architecture as something in design and looking at a broader issue of the livelihood and the energy of the city. And that represents something extremely powerful. It's the way New York right now is suffering under an extreme economy. But one of my mays why, I live around the corner. I live on Mercer. And I go back and forth between LA and New York. And I've gone for a month to come back. And three shops are closed. I'm going, oh dear, it's a tough time. And then I come back the next time and there's three new shops. I'm going, guys, this is amazing. I just talked to my wife about this last night. I started in the winter of these two new shops. There was a big opening last night in the fast shop. And there were all these two-meter girls hanging out. And I was going, what's going on? And it's this new shop that opened up. And I'm going, what in it? It's amazing how resilient our society is. And that resiliency includes its architecture. It's resilient in terms of the society. It's resilient economically. And that's a really good thing. That resiliency means that we can solve problems. And we can come up with other solutions. And it represents an incredibly complicated organism that's so multifaceted that it can keep you regenerating itself. And again, that commercial or cultural regeneration is paralleled by architectural regeneration. Makes sense? And who cares if you're building last 10 years? In fact, in some ways, it'd be kind of interesting if, what if 10% of New York was only existed for three years? And then it'd be something new. Got it. It'd actually be the image of Arcagram, if this is what they really anticipated. And every time you came into New York, there'd be like new things showing up as buildings. I don't think it'd be fantastic, I think, right? The city would be constantly. You could never understand it, never know it. It'd be constantly defining itself. And it'd be the essence of a really vital, cosmopolitan place. Should we be held accountable? I guess the answer has to be yes, doesn't it? But I think it's a bit more complicated than the architect is responsible for this. Architects are beholden to clients that allow you to manage a project. And believe it or not, aren't the power behind the criterion by which buildings are built, whether it's programmatic or whether it's performance and performance in terms of energy? And so that we're looking at a collaborative effort between, I guess, you would have to include governmental agencies and an agreement in society of how buildings have to behave and what that normative behavior is in terms of this issue. And it would have to do with the promotion of that and the acceptance of that by a client. And finally, the architect that really the third party, because again, it doesn't matter whether you're interested or whether it's a serious value in your work or not, it still requires an agreement of client. So it's going to be finally a collaboration of, again, the architect's going to step in and we're going to be responsible now in manifesting that desire. Of course, you know that we're at a time that it seems to be maybe the first time in this country that there's been a radical shift in how we think about energy. Because this is a country that's rich in energy and could be wasteful because of the vastness of our resources. And so we didn't have to concern ourselves with that. And it wasn't really a serious issue until it wasn't even made aware of a serious issue until maybe the 60s. And in terms of its broad global effects. And so this is something new and I'm quite really hopeful that it seems to be that the public is now quite enmeshed in this issue. There's a thing that needs to be more conversation that's accessible to the common public. That really allows them to understand architecture is something much more complicated that is a result of this type of thinking about these numbers of forces. So you look at this building and go, oh, really tough. And maybe to my eyes, ugly, because it's made out of it. It's brutal. And I'm going to go, well, actually the concrete is construction concrete. And it's because of the cost model. Would it be appropriate to spend twice the amount of money? Probably not. An intricate facility that has free tuition, et cetera. And so I'm going to go, well, maybe you understand it really more if you realize the building is a reflection of economic forces that are connected to cultural forces. Where do you really want to build seagulls in the site? Well, seagulls building might not be appropriate. They're represented at Whiskey Company and represented at the essence of corporate America when it was built. And well, you could still argue, well, that's appropriate or not, but that's a separate conversation. But the first thing you'd want to do is start looking at architecture and see it as a reflection of the forces that make it. And it's not all of the architect. Everybody goes, Tom Main or Morpheus, et cetera. And I think it's much more complicated than that. We are translating the forces. And again, it goes back to other conversations we had. You'd look at the client group and the institution, in this case. You'd look at the nature of the economics at a particular time. You'd look at the technology available to you, et cetera, et cetera. Somehow we need more of that conversation so that you see differently. If you looked at the lunar landing module, is that a beautiful figure of the time? If you really admire what it did in saying, one time, 250,000 miles, one way, 250,000 miles back, you probably admire it. And you might even affect you in thinking it's interesting, maybe not beautiful, maybe beautiful. But the point would be, you admire it, you find it interesting, you find it beautiful because you understand it in context to some greater goal. Makes sense? There's a whole new architecture emerging out of this generation. And what you think is evident today, which is absolutely different from the way I was trained in architects. And I suspect I'm seeing in universities projects of greater urban scope and infrastructural scope, people working on waste management facilities and broad urban projects having to do with infrastructure, transportation, movement of people, city edges. Maybe something more direct connected to direct political engagement, cultural, social engagement. Also, very thought through a real politic, quite serious in terms of the reality and an engagement with reality is my sense, as I see certain things kind of taking place right now.