 Thank you, Mr. Misica. It's now time to open the panel discussion. The way we'll do it is that it will give you two or three minutes to do a short introduction to each of you, and then we'll open up the discussion among all the speakers. The first to speak will be Ed Glazer, professor of economics at Harvard University. He's very well known for his book, The Time of the City, where he defends the economic dynamism of cities. So Ed. These were all wonderful, wonderful presentations, and I think I want to make three points that follow up very clearly to them. First of all, in some sense, a hyper-dense city without common spaces may still be urban, but it's an ugly urbanity. It's an urbanity that none of us loves, because in fact so much of what we find most precious about our successful cities are the common spaces. Are the spaces that provide a form of equity that mean that anyone can come and enjoy Piazza San Marco, whether or not they can afford a drink at Florian or not. They can still be there and experience it. They provide the spaces in which we have the unplanned interactions that so often make for the most precious things that happen in cities. And there are also spaces of education, of possibility. And I think really as we think forward to the future, particularly the cities in the developing world, ensuring ways that those cities can have the same kind of magical shared spaces, shared open spaces that we have in the great cities of the West is really absolutely crucial. The second point I want to make is to follow up on Deputy Mayor Maseca's comments in particular. And I want you to think about a typology of spaces, where think about spaces that are public and private, and then between, think about spaces that are shared ownership. So, for example, roads, highways in 18th century England were provided by Turnpike trusts, right? You could have community improvement districts, for example, which manage some of the spaces in Barcelona that are occasionally overrun by tourists. You know, you can have an intermediate group. And then you can think about spaces that are free for everyone, and also spaces that are priced, that are barred of various ways. And in fact, you don't want to think of there as being a complete hierarchy of these things, because in fact, sometimes as Deputy Mayor Maseca suggested, you have privately owned spaces that are open, that are marvels of urban living. Think about, for example, Rockefeller Center in New York City, right? This is a privately owned space, and yet it is a space that is open to the urban fabric, which brings delight to millions of people annually. And then there are spaces, in fact, that are public, that actually should be barred and aren't, right? So, for example, roads, which are currently free, and we act as if everyone has a right to that part of the city, I want to push back against that. I don't think every driver has a right to every road at every point in time. I actually think they should be paying for that right, because in fact, if they don't pay for it, then they will pollute too much, then they will congest too much. And in fact, making sure that we don't act as if the right to drive your car everywhere at any time is a part of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. is, in fact, a major thing. And I think the last point I want to make is that common spaces, shared spaces, don't just need to be defined, they need to be defended. I feel confident that Sally Angel this afternoon will say something about the need to grid the cities of the developing world. And he's absolutely right. We need to make sure that we have thoroughfares quickly, easily. We need to do what they did in 1811 in New York. But the critical thing is that those shared spaces can so easily be overwhelmed. They can be stolen, as Saskia has told us, by private developers who take the commons and steal them away. And they can also be taken, occupied by people who are perhaps more sympathetic, poorer squatters, but who degrade common space, nevertheless. So as we think about creating common spaces in the cities of the developing world, we have to think both about creating them, but also about who's going to defend them. And that, in some sense, is why we need to create a range of different institutions, some of which are purely public, some of which are purely private, and some occupy that middle space that so often can sometimes, at least, manage to defend the spaces and yet leave them open to a wider range of people. Thank you, Ed, for sticking to the time. Now the turn for Ana Claudia Rosbach. She's a regional advisor for Latin America and Caribbean and other cities' alliances, the term of talking about net growth and cooperation between cities. Yeah, thank you, Judith. Yeah, as a matter of fact, I would like to bring some elements that are different than what you talk about the cities you are researching or are in charge of manage. No, I'm talking, I come from Brazil, I come from Latin America, I come from the global south, so I can see many elements that are very, very common between the challenges that you are facing in Barcelona, you are facing in Paris, and the challenges that Saskia was pointing out, major global cities are facing and our cities are facing, although we are totally different realities, totally different realities. Saskia talks about the unfinished cities. I have the feeling that many cities in Latin America, they will be forever unfinished because people haven't even finished the construction of their houses, and they are temporary bases because of flooding, sometimes they are forever in temporary and provisory situation. In many countries, Islam, they don't have the right to stay where they are. In Brazil, in my country, according to the constitution, Islam dweller living for more than five years in a plot until 250 square meters has the right to stay there if this property was not complained. This is the essence of the right to the city, this is the essence of the right to housing, but this is not the case in many other countries. In the case of my country, it took us around 16 years to consolidate this mentality of non-resettlement, but if you go to many other countries in the global south, you will find people being resettled to housing projects in the best cases, to housing projects far away, this will lead to social segregation, this will lead to further global migration, so this, which apparently is a local problem, will be transformed into a major problem. But what I think is interesting from all these presentations and what encourages me towards the new urban agenda, Mayor, is that it seems to me that we can find a common ground in terms of identifying the ways out, the way you are managing your cities, review some elements of keeping people on the center, so we forgot that in the north, in the south, that's why our cities are so disrupted, bringing the social aspect, the social component of urbanization in democratic environments. The need to consider the social function of the land, which is an fundamental component of the right to the city as it states in the declaration, the draft zero, of the Quito Declaration. It's an important agenda brought by Latin American countries, I have the feeling these countries are coming more and more into that. And it's the most interesting, dynamic and vibrant element of this new urban agenda under my perspective. And understand that cities don't have the capacity to solve their problems alone. You said that, so you need citizens, you need the civil society, you need the private sector, you need the academia, the NGOs, you need the whole society, the media to active, as you showed in your example, as stakeholders, segments of the society, understanding that changes have to happen in all cities, in the north and in the south, because of different challenges, but moving forward, taking stakes and being positive, taking a role. I think I have to finish now. But not only that, we need multi-level governance, so we need to count with metropolitan arrangements and management systems, we need to count with national urban policies, especially, I would say, in countries where urbanization is still going on, or with high levels of vulnerabilities that we have to address. So you need strong hands from the national level, strong legal frameworks, strong policies that are able to leverage the capacities and provide the cities the autonomy, decentralizing power, building capacity, and at the same time, designing policies that are able to leverage impact as soon as possible. And most of all, improve the understanding that cities attract the rich and the poor, and they will do, and they are a gate of opportunity. In Latin America, cities were a gate of wonderful economic and social development opportunity. We might have cities with high levels of urban poverty, we might have cities in Latin America that are highly segregated. This Mexico-built picture, the Colombians will talk later, mayor of Bogota, my own city, Rio de Janeiro, Peru, Bolivia, all countries, but people improve their lives, people improve their income, and people improve their social conditions. So, I'm happy to be here and to bring the perspective of our Latin American cities and to share with you the common challenge for the new urban agenda. Thank you. Thank you, Ana-Claudia. It's now the turn of Yolanda Bern, head of World Research at Savile Real Estate in London. Can you hear me now? So, I think the themes that I've picked up here are something that we've been observing in, if you like, developed cities, and I think there is a world of difference between talking about Jean-Granju and London. But I think a lot of the issues that have been raised, particularly around, for example, investor behaviour, is about the concentration of capital in cities. And I think we've just gone through, if you like, the third age of cities. If the first age was about proximity to materials, the manufacturing age was about proximity to markets, the late 20th century was about proximity or the concentration of capital in cities and very much focused on what investors are doing. I think what we're now seeing is a response from occupiers, which we've actually heard outlined in different ways. But the real divide in my home city of London is not between, I think, the oligarchs and the billionaire investors in the centre, but actually a much more powerful and widespread issue, which is the concentration of capital in the hands of older generations. And the way I see that this is now panning out in the digital age, we heard earlier about how people can be anywhere. A Korean kid in a bedroom can invent a multimillion app. So the digital age has enabled people to become more footloose. And what we're observing in Australia, the USA, the UK, some places in Europe, is the unaffordability of the city actually pushing people out to not the suburbs, but other good urban areas, sometimes very small. So in London, people are moving to Bristol or Brighton or even Margate, very small towns in some cases. I think New York is seeing people consider Ithaca or Jersey City Heights or even Philadelphia to the south. What we're calling this is urban dispersal, and we think this is a phenomenon of the digital age, and that's something you need to be looking toward. You don't need just to be thinking about who's investing, who's buying, who's owning either the public or private spaces, but actually where the occupiers are going and where they're choosing to be. And in this respect, I think the city, the mature city is becoming an idea that is getting exported to other cities or urban centres within clusters, and the digital age is enabling those clusters of cities to operate together. And I think this is something that very quickly will disseminate. And what we're looking at is two tiers of city. There's a world of difference between, in the UK, Manchester, Bristol, London versus Hull and Grimsby, for example. We can all think of areas that just aren't experiencing the same sort of city as we've been talking about around this table today. And I think that's where the divide is coming, is between the Sivitas city and the clusters of population. I think this is going to be an enormous issue in China and other Asian cities, where I don't know if anybody else has been diverting themselves in the UK away from some of the issues that we've been experiencing by watching a wonderful period drama called Versailles. But Louis XIV seemed to understand the power of the city very, very well. He wanted to limit the power of his nobles, so he put them all in suburbia. He built suburbia for them, entertained them to the hilt. We now do the same with cable TV, I guess. But if we want to disempower people, we take them out of the city. And I think what we're seeing in so many cities and what's been reported here is the citizens retaking the power because the city enables them to. And we're going to see a big difference between the sort of city that enables that, where the urban, the built form and the civic form come together and enable that versus the disempowered city. And I think very many Asian cities, for example, are disempowered cities. Thank you. We have now 30 minutes for general discussion among the speakers. I'm going to come back to you all. I promise it's going to be an open discussion now. I'm just going to start it. We're going to start it off. But then there will be an opportunity for an open discussion. I mean, I think there's pretty widespread agreement that cities produce. Agglomerations are very different people who in turn create very different kind of ownerships. And different, they can be young and old. They can be people moving in. People who are always there, rich and poor within a city. Civic power is clearly used often to try to manage it. They're equally opposite. Equally, it relies on upper levels of government, state and federal government as well as what the city itself can do. But the thing that strikes me most, just listening to the discussion this morning, is that on the one hand, cities do struggle with these problems of the powerful and the less empowered and often the unempowered. But on the other hand, they are trying to attract people to these cities, often rich people and investors at the same time. And I do just wonder whether there's a sort of pull and push going on here that all cities are interested in inward investment and rich and successful and talented people moving to them. And yet, if too many of them do, it distorts the way the city functions. Now, Saskia, is there anything in what I'm saying? Oh, it's on, OK, fine. No, it's perfect, excellent. You said it all. No, what I think is interesting is when I look at our global economy at the most advanced sectors, urban space is one moment. So I see this as a very different period. It's very difficult for those without power, for the poor, for the modest middle classes to have any contact with power nowadays. So the city is one of the few remaining places because so much power exists in a stratosphere. It is partly digitized, as you were saying, but it is also enclaves. So in that sense, our good old big old cities are not bad, even though, as I described, there are a few abuses happening. So what concerns me is not to lose the city as a space, it is a frontier space. We're very different actors. And I include, I just talked about poor and rich, but it could be artists, you know, the diversities of people. And so having power needing cities is crucial, it seems to me. It's very important, precisely because, increasingly, it's a highly intermediated, you know, power is highly intermediated nowadays. So I think that is important. But at the same time, I do think that that experts, policy makers, politicians, activists need to recognize also what is happening in many of these cities, the data is quite overwhelming, that housing, modest housing has become impossible. That is a negative. If they coexist, the poor and the rich, I think that's good. Yeah. OK, I'm going to come back to the mayor and the deputy mayor in a minute. But Ed, I mean, you've written extensively about how certain kinds of city have triumphed. And they do triumph by attracting people, so they attract people and money. And once they've done that, they're very successful. And then they begin to destroy the very thing that makes them successful, discuss. Your point, of course, is dead on. And while it is critical for cities to attract smart, innovative entrepreneurial people, it is also critical that everyone have a voice. You know, thinking about the way that cities can empower and enable connections, that is reminded of the fact that allegedly the late mayor of Boston, Tom Menino, who ruled the city essentially with an iron hand for two decades, had met personally with more than 50 percent of the city's residents, which is an extraordinary amount of access, or something we would aspire to, to make sure you've met personally with 50 percent of Paris or Barcelona. But when we think about sort of making the city accessible, it's impossible to do this without capital and investment as well, right? In some sense, when you think about the cities of the West, where there is huge demand for living in these areas, we can't satisfy the demand without housing supply. We can't satisfy that without building. And at least in the West, it's impossible to imagine that building being entirely done by public entities, that in fact cities require private development as well. And historically, many cities have managed to achieve this. New York City built 100,000 units a year in the 1920s, and it did so by building for modest people of modest means and made sure the city remained a gateway, remained affordable during those years. The problem, I think, is not that the mega projects are mega, although often they are bad, and I agree with Saskia that way. And in many cases, I think we need mega projects. The problem is that they are dedicated towards a single type of resident, and we need to make sure that we are building in ways that allow rich and poor alike to come to the city and to find their dreams within the urban fabric. The growth of the... Ricky put up photographs earlier on of the Los Angeles model and the Hong Kong model, but they are not unfair in the sense that they're real, but they're precise polar opposites. And wasn't one of the ways in which New York City, in fact other cities that grew in the 20s and 30s London as well, they did that by consuming a lot of land and building housing at relatively low densities. Is it possible to build at these very high densities in certainly developed cities, perhaps in any cities, but certainly in developed cities without driving up the cost and therefore the sale price? So, you know, I don't think it's right to think that keeping low densities low does anything much for affordability. In fact, exactly the opposite, right? I mean, Jane Jacobs made this argument in the 50s and she was wrong on this one. That in fact, Greenwich Village does not stay affordable by keeping at low density. All you're doing is making sure there isn't the supply that meets demand. Townhouses in Greenwich now start at $8 million and that's what happens by keeping densities artificially low. You've got to supply more. In fact, when New York built in the 1920s, there was a huge amount of pushback from the traditional low density owners on Fifth Avenue. What we now see in Fifth Avenue was, would have been stopped completely if they hadn't been allowed to build up. I want to say one thing which is, I think, important. The alternative is not between Hong Kong and Los Angeles because I don't want to have these two cities. And I think that Paris and Barcelona are very highly dense city, high density cities, without towers. So it's possible to have very dense city without towers. And I think that this is a big challenge. For example, in Paris, we want a very small amount of towers. Only has signals for new centralities, for new quarters, but not like in London with their 275 project of towers. So you don't have to explain that density means high level buildings. And I think that if you look at things like this way, you can understand that it's possible to have social mixity in a dense area. What do you need? You need social housing. You need cheap public transportation and you need public services like schools, kindergartens and sports area and so on. It's not so difficult to do it. It's not so difficult. I'm very sorry. And I think that if a city don't do it, it will die. I would like to ask a question of Jean-Louis, because it is true that we live in similar cities and we are sharing many strategies. But at this point in time where we are developing innovation projects to defend the commons, the common goods, to defend this space as a democratic space for excellence, well, we have a risk. We run a risk. Centrification. Everybody wants the city. So you may have a paradox. So when you carry out interventions that are highly participatory and very democratic, thinking of the common goods and without speculation, these interventions improve that area so much that the prices increase anyway. And this leads me to talk about the idea of governance. Cities have smaller and smaller budgets and state governments have to tackle all of the effects of all of the regional policies, state policies, European policies and world policies. All of the policies concentrate in our cities. We cannot regulate rent prices because this can only be done by the state level. We can intervene in the city. And these interventions lead to rent increases, but they don't allow us to touch the prices. And then you have migration policies. Migrants live in our cities. We want to be a city that protects the human rights and we want all of the citizens to have the same obligations and the same rights, but the state level doesn't agree with us. And they adopt a law that condemns many people to be inhabitants, but not citizens. And we are to manage this situation. And we have to ask these people to be citizens and to comply with their obligations, as all of the others do. So we have to focus on a specific idea. We must ask, we must tell the states that giving more power to the cities doesn't mean steel powers from the state, but having better cities, better cities. The presence of one mayor and one of the guys may have two important European cities to ask. What is the real power today for local governments in cities that are driven by global forces like global capital, as Saskia was saying, but also global migration, global tourism, what is the real power? Are the cities less powerful or are they the last space for resistance and democracy? Well, I think that in Paris we have power. In our hands, we have the urban planning tool, which is very important, because we can decide, for example, to say, well, in this area, you don't build offices, you will build housing. And we can decide to say, if you are building housing, 30% will be social housing. So we have very strong tools, and we have also tools in the field of public transportation. So and for, of course, in all the amenities, we decide the part of public space, vegetation and urban agriculture. We are implementing in Paris. We have decided to create 100 hectares of vegetation on the roofs and a part of it, 30 hectares of urban agriculture, which means a lot of urban agriculture in the next five years in Paris. So we have power, but we don't have enough power. And we think that diplomacy of cities is a big challenge. For example, when Mayor Hidalgo organized the 1000 Mayors meeting during the COP 21 in Paris in December, it was a very interesting signal sent to nation states that the age of metropolis power is coming and it's coming very soon. And I think that we have to join together in alliance, city's alliance, in order to make pressure, not only on nation states, governments, but also on a bigger organization like the European Union. One very strange thing of the Brexit, as you know, is that the Londonians have voted 60% for maintain. And it means that between Paris and London, the relationship will not be exactly the same than there are between France and the Great Britain. So we have to organize a common leadership and maybe a common governance. And we have to organize common governance between Barcelona and Paris. If we want to transform the real situation we are living in the 21st century, which is not the urban age, but the metropolitan age, we have to create a new power, a new metropolitan power, which is, of course, a single power of cities, but also a collective power of all the alliance of metropolitans. I fully agree with my colleague from Paris saying that we have power. I must say that we don't have all of the power we would need to bring benefit to the citizens and for effective public policies, but we have lots of power at the same time. And we can have power if we have the will to use, because we are the place of the agora, of the place of everyday politics, the place where you conquer your rights on a daily basis. We have an example with the refugee crisis. We have seen many cities and many countries that have concluded an agreement with Turkey that we don't agree with that. They don't represent us. We want to be a land of peace open to the world for those who run away from war and horror. We've said in many cases, this is not the Europe you want. We want to build up a new Europe from the grassroots, and we started to talk with Lesbos, with Lampedusa, with Amsterdam, and we are building up this other Europe that wants to be a land for the refugees, for people, for human rights, and we are doing it that. We don't have the budget that the European Union has. We don't have a competence for border policies and for refugee policies, but we are doing it all the same, and we are managing, because it's the future of Europe which is at stake, and we can't renounce that. Thank you, of course. I want to give an example about refugees because we had a very strong conflict with the government, the French government, about refugees in Paris, and Mayor Hidalgo once said, I am fed up with all these refugees living in the streets, so I'm going to create a center for welcome them with or without the government, and it was a very, very hard dispute between the city and the government, but at the end of the day, the government said, okay, we will be part of this center, and we will pay part for it, so we can also, on the field where we have another real power, obliged the nation state to move and to change things, because metropolis is very strong, and we have to use this soft power in order to move things. We have 10 minutes left, so I would like to open the door for the rest of participants. Saskia, you wanted to say something? I want to come back to something that you mentioned. I thought I heard you say this difference between North and South cities. I think the space of power, which is a mix. Elements are good, elements are not so good at all, but that space of power, the way I see it, is a, these are cross-border geographies that are invisible to the eye as geographies, but they exist, and so a part of Hong Kong, a part of Sao Paulo, not the whole city, and these are very specific, Luanda now. They have decided to transform Luanda into a platform so they can extract all the natural wealth that has not been exploited yet in Angola. So I see that as one kind of geography that is to me very disturbing, and it absolutely cuts across South, North, East, West. And I just wanted to hear what you have to say. The second point I wanted to say about immigrants, which I'm deeply engaged by, so there are a lot of dying cities in the world, small cities, and the Germans have this term, schrimfen die Städte, cities that are shrinking, and why don't they invite immigrants to come? And a little town in Italy, in Southern Italy did that, a bishop, a lefty bishop, very important here, a Catholic, but a buddy of the Pope, said to Eritreans, there were about 72 older people still living there, told a whole bunch of Eritreans, make it your village, and they did. Now, they have all their old crafts that they're working on, they make their own music, you know, there are so many possibilities because I'm thinking of Spain, I don't know about France, but there are a lot of cities that are sort of dying in the northeast of Germany, et cetera, and I think the same thing in the United States. We know that those cities that took in immigrants in the United States, that cities that were sort of dying, have actually thrived. Why is there not a more spatial approach to the matter rather than this notion of the immigrant and the citizen? Now, Barcelona, you don't need more inhabitants, I realize that, but you know, sort of. Jolani? I think you know what that's like, we have to think about what type of city we're asking the immigrants to, and I think if we're talking about the desirability, the necessity of cities to attract people, and we're serious that the future economy is about human capital, it's the ability of people to meet on the street and do things in a human capacity, not purely financial, then we have to actually create the right environments for that to happen, and I just want to beg, we still talk about housing, making sure that housing makes, people don't live in housing, they live in neighborhoods. Where you go and what you do, other than just sleep in your house, is really, really important, and I would argue that we simply don't have enough real city to go around. That's why things are so expensive. Barcelona is a rare thing, central London is a rare thing. There's a world of difference between the inner suburbs of Paris and central Paris, there's a world of difference between the outer suburbs of London and central London, and people would be able to exist, I think, very much more happily and coexist and welcome newcomers if there was more of the really good environment, street-based good neighborhoods to go around, and I would argue that quite simply in the late 20th century, that's not what we've been building, so that is a global problem, and it means that there will be the same divides in every city, and very often you look at them, and they are the divides between the traditional, old city that people built for themselves, sometimes as informal settlements originally, and there's a world of difference between those neighborhoods and the big hand neighborhoods that have de-urbanized, that have actually physically enacted that concentration of capital I was talking about earlier, and there's nothing more concentrated in terms of capital than a tower, and it's this collective and mixed neighborhood that wherever we're building, everywhere, I think we really have to concentrate on if there was more of it, the problem of being priced out in so many cities across the world, I don't think would be nearly so great. Most migrants actually have high levels of education, they're very capable. I say, let them take over, it's their choice. I know that there were some people after the crisis in Spain, they were a bunch of techies, never been in rural areas, they took over actually a town, I think it was in Catalunya, but in a very desperate, nobody was there, took them two years, and they built sort of a rural industrial economy out of it, to export food to the city, so to say. I mean, that is what I'm thinking, I totally agree with your analysis, I'm not this, but there is a lot of empty, semi-dead urban space, and it just would be interesting, if we have millions and millions of people who are in need of something, give that as an option. I mean, in France, you have in the old rural areas a lot of dying places too, and it's just a thought, you know, that somehow a logical thought that I can't avoid having. I don't know that it can work, but in fact, I think that for refugees, for migrants, it's exactly the same as for the creative classes, the attractiveness of the Metro police is so strong, because even for them, the quality of life is better, and the opportunities are higher, so this is why they are going to the big cities. When there is a crisis everywhere on the planet, you'll find people, in Paris we have Afghan people, we have Syrian people, we have Kurd people, each earthquake or civil war created a new community in Paris and maybe in Barcelona, and see the strength of a city, of a global city, as you know, we know that all these people are able to create something new in the city, and the cosmopolitization of the city is the mainstake, I think, for a city like Paris. But what about the desperate ones, the ones that we are rejecting, the ones that we are putting, you know, I'm not talking about those who manage to get, I'm talking about, I mean, there are vast numbers of people, you know, so that is, anyhow. Impulse the ability of a city to welcome the most desperate, right? There's nothing more precious, nothing more sacred than that, but that leaves us with this problem, I think, and Yolanda said it perfectly, there's not enough London to go around, there's not enough Paris to go around, right? Which means that the decision to build is not free, the decision to keep Paris low is not free. Now, Paris is wonderful in many ways and it is a wonderful human city, but it is not by any reasonable definition affordable. There is some social housing that is built, but there's no sense in which an ordinary person who does not have access to this housing can go in and buy Paris and enjoy it. And in some sense, the great challenge to you, to the architects in the audience, is figuring out ways so that cities can be archipelagos of neighborhoods, places that have the short space, the places that have the tall space, but in all of those areas, places that are humane, places that are open to the streets, places that have common spaces, because that can be accommodated with taller towers as well as shorter buildings, as long as, and I just wanna end with this, that they recognize that all structures need to be built for the people that live in that city, because otherwise we are building Potemkin villages at just a larger scale, unless our cities are fundamentally oriented towards delivering value towards humanity, to rich and poor, then they are failing. Very good, well, for those of you who watched me, rather embarrassingly waving the yellow cards at our speakers who were doing so well and it felt terribly rude, retribution in the shape of Ricky is now waving one at me or us. So there is indeed fairness in the world. Lunch beckons, we're just to summarize, not to summarize what we've heard this morning, but just to pick up one or two of the issues that came up towards the end, I think to do with cities and their capacity to offer the world things that countries often cannot. Now, I've always been struck by, I think it's Kenneth Jackson, the historian of New York, who pointed out, I hadn't occurred to me oddly, that cities offer the cloak of anonymity, which for some people seems alienating, but for people fleeing persecution is very good indeed. And the cloak of anonymity means safety to live your life in peace. And I've always been struck by his observation of that. I think the other thing that we've effectively bumped up against towards the end of this very, to me very, very interesting conversation is the fact that cities do often contain clusters of people who think about what the city is like, write books about what the city is like, and often are politically progressive. It is intriguing to me that New York was always famously a very progressive place, except when the Republicans won it half the time, but other than that, I mean, often had even liberal Republicans. Paris now has a socialist mayor three times, three elections back to back, New York, London is drifting to the left politically, and Barcelona clearly has a very bottom-up form of progressive politics. So cities think differently and can often force through policies for neighborhoods of the kind we've heard from both the mayor and the deputy mayor. But I do think this begs one final question because I'm having the last say here, I can say this, which is that they are, of course, cities within countries and the hinterland has a very different view about these things. That is that cities can be progressive towards migrants and asylum seekers, whereas their countries' populations are often very antipathetic to exactly the same issue. Question, does this mean cities have to become more independent? More like the city state in which we, or historically, sat. Anyway, enough of that. Lunge beckons, I'd like to thank our fabulous panel, all of them.