 Well, we're conscious that we stand between this panel, between us and lunch. So we have about 10 minutes Ricky has given us to have some conversation among our three. Well, Enrique left, so actually this will be much shorter. To have some conversation, we probably have time just to explore a couple of things. One we want to talk specifically about what all this means for Istanbul in a second, just trying to maybe connect these three ideas, these three sort of themes that have come out and see where the disconnections are. I mean, first of all, just to put it in summary, Enrique, you talked about, first of all, I think you started this sort of, how do we reconcile on the one hand the primacy of the market forces, which you talked about, which is how strong that is and the tension between the market forces on the one hand and this notion of the city and who's in charge and how decisions are made. But that there is a very strong that the market left on its own in your proposition will not necessarily produce a great city for its people. With that, go to Alejandro, your point, which is how cheapness, right, has become in a way the shaper of cities. And that cheapness is a driving force in the shape of cities. It was part of your proposition and in some ways, the way that's pushing cities to a particular place. And then of course, Richard talked about what is in a way the, what is the ideal form, what is the city should strive for, the compact city, urban form, equality, sustainability, as what we should be striving for. So in a sense, how do we reconcile, I mean not that they can be reconciled, but how do your thoughts on these tensions between market, between cheapness and consumption, between where we should be in terms of the compact city, connecting, I think Richard talked about how architecture and planning, the vertical and the horizontal or one, cannot be thought of separately. And of course, adding to that the political, so architecture, planning and politics really have to all be connected to produce this. And I was struck yesterday thinking about, in your presentation, Alejandro, about yesterday's Cicato, Manta made the point about as he was looking, as we've traveled around in the urban age to different cities and you almost feel when you see how Mumbai is developing and you see the towers that you showed, what's happening in Istanbul, you can see it in Shanghai and asked, is there one architect for all of this? Is there someone who's just literally sitting there, did one design, put it out over the computer, went out and the cities, these instant cities that are driven by cheapness, driven by market, driven by politics are producing a form that's ultimately unsustainable. So a long preamble, but maybe we can get to the point here of, what is the role of the architect, urban designer, planner? How do we try to bring these contradictions? What's the voice? How do we shape this? I think we know what the problem is. We know what the challenge is. What's the best way we intervene to get to what Richard showed us in terms of mobilizing the politics that it connects with our planning and connects with our architecture to produce more sustainable cities? Maybe I'll just open it up to your thoughts and then I think we can go to how that plays out in Istanbul. Maybe I can remark on that. Or any one, or Enrique, I'm sure you have a thought about how this. Just to provoke some thoughts, starting from the point that Alejandro left. I don't remember who said that, but there was a question, which is addressed to socialist thinker. I mean, what do you think about McDonald's or Coke? I mean, he said that they are perfect because, I mean, Obama can drink the same quality of Coke with the person who is living in Vietnam in the street and so there is a, I mean, starting from your point of cheapness and quality, I mean, if we can reduce or create a new way of, I mean, delivering architecture with the same standard to everyone accessible, I mean, then we can maybe introduce democracy and equalization by means of architecture. So, and Richard also spoke about the density and how we need density in the cities. And actually, when we talk about how politicians should also develop these kinds of densities, I mean, they have to be convinced in order to create laws to create these kinds of densities. Actually, density, I think, something the politicians needs because, I mean, when you decentralize the cities and also decentralize the country, then it's harder for the politicians to address their, I mean, people. And so they are going to collect votes from those cities. And, I mean, the more dense, the more easier for politicians. So maybe we should speak from language of the politicians when we speak about also creating cities and designing cities. So, let me ask you. Jato. No. I don't think that there is any contradiction between the three proposals. It's just we are talking from different perspectives. And I am in no way opposing intervention. I think intervention is obviously necessary. And I think that I completely share Richard's strategies in order to make cities more sustainable. The reason why I'm putting forward these bad examples, perhaps, of unsustainable urban development and try to make something out of it is because I believe that despite their problems, these developments are doing one thing, which is to democratize the access to the city. I think that the developments that, for example, Richard is proposing or the type of growth that Richard is proposing is obviously ideal, but probably not always affordable in the current market economy. And that's where probably certain level of intervention is required in order to make these things affordable. So I'm just suggesting that rather than entirely dismissing this type of urban growth as unsustainable and non-civic, perhaps if we turn them one point more, if we intensify them, we can perhaps produce something that will start challenging the status quo, that Enrique's... I think that... Yeah, Richard. Enrique uses my Bible. I use his Bible. And I have very little to say about what Enrique has said. I think the basis of all this is that private greed is eroding public responsibility and this is the big balance. Funnily enough, I don't think it's about cost. I think you can cut that cost. It's easier if you have money. It's about distribution of wealth. That's another discussion. And clearly, the distribution of wealth is a very complex. There's a very good book that's just come out called The Spirit Level. Anybody's read it? But it shows the health implications of that distribution of wealth as well as the urban implications. Cost is a complicated thing because, of course, just to take the point that you said about Mies van der Rohe. Mies van der Rohe, with or without bronze, is, I'm going to say, expensive architect if you do it in that way. He is not a sort of 4x2 bits of tile architect. He gives you a certain value. I think, basically, that we need to understand what we want. A long-term value is very different to short-term value. Most of the things that we have seen, which are low cost, which are important to have low cost, have short terms built into them. So what is the problems with wealth? What are the problems with poverty? How do you distribute that wealth? To me, that is a critical part of where we have to go. But most important of all that is what we're seeing is we do have pretty much an agreement about where we're going. There'll be variation. There are clearly national and regional variations. But I suspect that everybody is more or saying the same thing, which is pretty amazing today. Just to pick up on that, Omer, do you think that's right in the context of Istanbul, in the sense of the debates that are happening about the growth in the form of Istanbul, and Richard's saying in terms of the sense of we have an idea about what makes cities work. There's the kind of form of cities, the connection of land use and transport. We heard this morning in panels that there seems to be a disconnect between transportation and land use policy. How is all this playing out here? And do architects have a voice? Are the planners having a voice? How are those views integrated into this debate? Are they? Actually, I don't think there is a overall voice, which is, I mean, addressed by architects or planners all together, because... And is there agreement? I mean, I think there is an agreement which is not spoken yet, but let me rephrase it like that. I mean, the sustainability became a buzzword for most of the architects. And it's now being used mostly like a slogan, instead of, I mean, the content of the sustainability has been emptied mostly for the last couple of years, especially in the architectural scene. And now it's being used like a label for the buildings, especially by the proper developers. I mean, even we don't, for example, have a tax reduction for any kind of certificates like Bream or Leet here in Turkey. Now, I heard that some private developers would like to apply for these kinds of certificates, just for, I mean, branding there and increasing the market value of their properties. I mean, there is no use for tax reduction for them. And they don't actually care about the environment. I mean, so the whole production of architecture, I mean, is almost reduced into a kind of producing capital. I mean, and especially with the last couple of years, I mean, I see that the square meter is becoming a new currency, especially in all the world, but it's very dense here in Istanbul. And so the government also sees that the land pieces, the square meters are actual currencies and to cover up the budget holes. And so they are privatizing the government lands, which we always talk about that. I mean, it should be avoided, but actually the government doesn't think like that. I mean, so, and within all those, I mean, environment, I think sustainability is always, I mean, reduced into a slogan. I mean, we cannot think about or speak about the real content of the sustainable building or the sustainability as we talked here among architects. And I still keep and hope that, I mean, in the future it's going to be more, I mean, debated and the real actual, I mean, sustainable buildings should be, I mean, developed and designed by a more consciousness, I suppose, by architects. And Rikki, and what did, since we have to go in about a minute, I see Rikki over here signaling, but go ahead and Rikki, and what advice do you have? I mean, you talked about political courage, you talked about your story, you've had some observations, you're traveling all over the world. Where do you start? Well, first, the most valuable resource a city has is its street space. It's like a treasure. If they found diamonds or oil under Istanbul, it would not be as valuable. This is really the treasure. And the most difficult political issue is how to distribute this space between pedestrians, well, bicycles not so much here, public transport, and cars, but these things have to be discussed. I mean, if you ask, if you find somebody in the street and you ask them what their ideal home is, I am sure they have exactly in mind what their ideal home would be, in which neighborhood, in which house, high in what story, whether it would have a balcony, what color it would be, the walls, everything. But if you ask them what their ideal city would be, most of the time, maybe they have not thought much about it, how to mix commercial and residential, or how high the buildings, or how wide the site works. I would propose that you will have a planning machine, a planning machine for, I, Richard Rogers said that, maybe when Paris is more important than the grand plans, where a thousand, so small projects, so as to make more humane or better different environments, I will have a planning machine, which is a three-seat wheelchair with a small electric engine, and you would, with a chain, with a lock, you would put there the mayor and the head of planning, perhaps, and in the middle is the youngest child of either two, and then push them, and take them to go around the city to see how well they do, you know. Well, maybe on that note, I think there's a lot more we could explore, but it's hard to go past that, unless anyone, Richard, or anyone has another comment, I'll thank everybody, thank you, Omar. We'll pick up on Istanbul later.