 One of the issues that I just want to maybe raise now for the three of you to consider when we come back is you've talked a lot about establishing a framework, a sort of civic vision of what the cities that you've talked about might be like. You haven't talked very much because of time, I'm sure, about how the main actors who actually act in the city, private developers, relate to that. And I think that's an important issue to be discussed because it's that negotiation, that mediation which can either go very right, or as we've often seen, very wrong, just thinking again at Alejandro Zairopolo's previous images in the previous session. Now to discuss and to contribute to enlarging the debate, we have four, I think, extremely interesting speakers, very diverse commentators, and Karen and I will bring them in at different points. Anthony Williams, as you gather, has been the mayor of Washington at a crucial time, is now, in fact, interestingly at the Kennedy School of Government, running a course on how to run cities, effectively, which I think is intriguing and an important occurrence. Can I ask Tony to comment? Thank you. Yes, I thought all the presentations, as usual, were very, very good. And I think just the overall presentation in Istanbul here has been just remarkable. So I salute all the presenters and I'll just spend three minutes so we will have time for discussion. Enough time for me to earn my way here, but not so much as to suppress discussion. When I became mayor, I think what I face is actually typical of what I think most city leaders face around the world, one where the authority was really not to be taken for granted, where there was really a kind of lack of self-determination for your city, as your authority was blurred, to say the least, without of the national government. My citizens of my city didn't even have the right to vote, right, for voting representation. For voting representation in the national legislature, we were a divided city, as Bruce Katz would tell you, representative of so many cities in the United States and so many cities around the world, as we've heard. And last but certainly not least, we were a dysfunctional city. Nothing really worked. I'm talking about nothing. All the social service agencies were under a court order. So that's pretty much what I inherited. So got into the job and I was, one, impressed by the city and the kind of reason for being for the city. I saw all the histories of the city and came upon the acquaintance of Andrew, who schooled me in the building blocks of a city. Great streets, as we've heard from Enrique Pinalosa, are hard in blood of your city, or arteries of your city, or downtown, the core of your city. Your neighborhoods, as we've heard from Richard Rogers, you know, and how these neighborhoods are the building blocks of a great city. And lastly, a waterfront. But how do you make this happen? How do you actually take a vision and make it a reality? I would give you three dimensions. One is the dimension of authority and recognize that your authority is not only over your government, but over what I would call and what we've heard from Richard's Senate, the public realm. It includes the government, but it's not limited to the government. It is a government and a non-governmental. It is the private and the collective are under your realm, but you have to use your authority sparingly. It's kind of like a nozzle. You have to build up your pressure so that you can focus that authority and deploy it wisely and crudently. And one, understand that there is no distinction between a vision and management. I hate it when people say, well, he's a great, or he or she's a great leader, but they can't manage anything, or he or she's a great, say this about me. Tony was a great manager, but he wasn't a leader. No, you have to do both, right? I tell my students the difference between good management and bad management is like American Samoa, $50 million for a tsunami warning. They didn't put the tsunami warning in place. They didn't have good management, which we don't care about, and people died. Billions of dollars stolen from your country because you didn't have good management. Zillions of dreams didn't become reality because you didn't have good management. Sorry to preach, but important. Number two, build consensus with your people. Not build consensus with your people. We had these citizen summits of 4,000 people, not so I just slavishly listened to all the people, but recognized that prudently using your authority over this public realm, is to say that I'm going to follow the 60, 40, or 70, 30 rule. I will listen and smart solidly to my people 60 or 70% of the time, and 30% of the time in a transparent way, I will let my people know that they elected me to make the final decision, right? Now, I'm not final because I'm infallible, but I am infallible because I'm final, if you know what I mean. And then lastly, focus on three things. If you try to lead with 40 things, it's not going to get anywhere, but focus on three things, and so me, it was basically restoring the government services of the district. To me, that was part of your authority because it was essentially punching the mill ticket. If you can't answer the phones, no one will listen to you about anything else. Restore respect for the city. And number three, the Anacostia River. So in terms of taking a vision for your city and making it reality, if you build your authority and build your apparatus to execute it, and focus on that thing relentlessly over and over again until you are sick of hearing it, it's probably penetrating your constituency. And then number two, on the programmatic, this notion of integration of the physical and social could not be more true. You know, I hate it when people say, well, the physical is important or the social important, both are important. And I'll leave enough said on that. I think we all agree with that. And then lastly, I would focus on the issue of time and understand that when you're talking about a vision for your city, think of the time dimension. So for example, in Washington, D.C., in the short-term dimension, Andrew worked on these short-term action plans for the neighborhoods. This is kind of like punching the mill ticket. The neighborhoods now are bought into our broader vision for the city because we're taking care of basic things that go to making quality of life in the neighborhoods better. And then in the medium term, I would put things like the Anacostia River as a medium-term project. And then in the longer term, and no one ever talks about this, and I'm happy they didn't, because it was the most important, I think, in the long term, we put in a new comprehensive plan for the city. So if you look at many beautiful cities around the world, it's not because they have just one or two beautiful buildings, it's because they have put in place a regime that is actually beautified and burnished the public space, this public realm year after year, decade after decade, and we were able to do that. So think of that. Think of that time dimension. Think of that notion of integrating the social and the physical, and by all means think of how you properly exercise, well, accumulate exercise and deploy your authority limited as it is. Tony, let me just ask you one question. Do you then believe in the notion that civic leaders such as yourself should back a very long-term plan for a city or because of the pace of change and the reality of what we see in most cities is that actually nothing really gets done in the same, in the way that the plan is intended? I think you should try to build long-term plans, but I think the route toward that long-term plan is to build credibility with a short term, apply it to the median term, and then if you're lucky, begin working on the long term. But many people start on the long term without any foundation, I believe. Sorry, on this important point of timing, you didn't have time to talk about this, but what are the first things that you would like to see implemented? Because many of the things you showed are very, very long-term, long structural change, massive investment. Very, very briefly, what are the short-term things that you think could change and deal with the quality of life issue, which is, I think, Tony. I think the couple of things, the first thing is, of course, we have transportation difficulties and there's a need, lots of railway system constructions to be done in Istanbul and then that takes lots of money and the time, but I'm sure that sometime in the future we will be solving that. But secondly, one of the very important issues is that I don't know how much the side of this number you've seen, but we have lots of collapsed areas, too. So these areas need to be redesigned and lots of renovation or regeneration projects should be carried out there. But again, here we have a different mentally tentative western situation. Here our people sometimes believe in fortune and then they just leave with their fortune and they don't want any progress to come out. So these are our difficulties. I think there needs a lot of propaganda to be done about that. Please, headphones. I will speak in Turkish. Now we've come to a very important point. We need to touch on this point about the current political role of the city directors. Now, the central direction of the administration is towards the political role. The city directors are generally in a second place. They are doing more technical work, they are doing more technocratic work. What are they doing? They are making a transition plan. What are they doing? They are improving the local areas. They are doing it again. So the place that is known to them, the place that is known to the local directors, is actually a kind of chube. It is a technocratic job that doesn't have a lot of role as a political person. The role that the local directors have known for the past 20 years. How will this role be? Today, the city director and a more integrated management model will be able to produce politics. Because this technocratic model actually looks like it doesn't have a political identity, but there is something that has been produced. It is a model that has been carrying the reality of the 19th century to the 21st century. In this case, the area of ​​museum is at its highest level. Only powerful actors in this area of ​​museum can have a voice, and the cities of people cannot make their voices out of this. The cities are in a form of passive actors in the middle of this museum. They have entered under a dimension. Now there is Erdogan Yıldız among our discussions. He is also here as a representative of this museum initiative in Gülensu and Gülsu. But at the same time, I promise to myself that one of the directors of this museum is one of the directors of the city. Thank you. It is really exciting to be in such an environment among such influential guests. I actually want to start with a word of Shakespeare. What is a city? If you close your eyes, if living in a city does not make people happy, it is not easy for people to be happy if they do not take the situation in the city as a promise. I was born here, I was born in Istanbul. I have a daughter and a son, they are also from Istanbul. In the neighborhoods where we live, there is a lack of visibility and lack of city integrity. They look at us as workers or people who do not fit in here. And this is very serious in the vision of the city and its plans in the future. In the 50s and 60s, this city was a city of art. Our fathers and grandmothers came from the villages to work here. We were here, we created a culture here. These neighborhoods were our neighborhoods, our city was our city. But today, outside of the city of art, Istanbul has begun to be a financial center. Istanbul has begun to be the city of the service-earning sectors. And here, there is no need for cheap jobs like us. We are living in a gentrified state. In other words, it is a process of service to the upper-class of the city. Now, if I want to summarize the process briefly, in Maltepe, there are large-scale construction processes in the waterfront. In front of the water tower, the Roman neighborhood in front of my eyes was recorded outside of the city. Many of the neighborhoods of Sarıyer were trying to get stuck in the blocks outside of the city. Many of the neighborhoods of Sarıyer were in a risky situation. And the people sitting here do not know the decision-making in the new vision of this city. While the plans are being made, the people here look at the city with their eyes, not with a neighborhood. As if the plans were just the works of the experts, city planners and visitors. As Ibrahim Bey mentioned earlier, the city is very technical and pragmatic. A technocrat looks at the city with his eyes, and the people here see the city as a nest in the plan. They see the city as a piece of the plan. And as I said, there are very serious obstacles in this process. In our neighborhoods and in our knowledge, this city is made like this. For example, when you go to a neighborhood or a neighborhood to plan, the residents of the neighborhood try to sell their own token on the value of this value. In other words, these people are not going to be able to live a happier and happier neighborhood. They are going to be able to get rid of these people and move on to other places, to the community. They are going to be forced to live in these places. This is something that cannot be accepted in our neighborhoods. Despite being the owners of this city, we have a serious problem and uncertainty in the vision and mission of the city. As you hear from the room, you put your finger on it. I visited Erdogan's community a few months ago. And while, of course, we understand the strength of feeling, there was also a lot of optimism in some of the ideas and the way you were able in your community to actually mobilize support. And I was encouraged that, in fact, you were at that point about to work with one of the universities and one of the schools of architecture to try and improve the environment around you for you and the local community that you represent so strongly. I guess this is the only sort of situation that an outsider, not an insider, can perhaps in a non-controversial and absolutely non-provocative way is to ask Ibrahim whether you feel that the plan as it now stands, the master plan, is able to deal with these issues. And this is not to defend but to say, is it something that in the process that you are given within which you work, you're able to deal with these issues or is this the next stage? Well, probably not the area, the gentleman's living, but some of the areas, we pointed out them in our master plan as a special project areas. I think there is one, I think, a conflict question. That is, in one side Istanbul is waiting one of the very big earthquakes to come. On the other side there are houses which inside the humans are living in and then they are not in very good conditions. Probably without the earthquake they may collapse immediately. We have a situation, I mean the choice between... Isn't that around 70% of the city? Isn't that situation? Well, it could be, it could be. So here there are a couple of questions in fact we have to ask ourselves. In any kind of regeneration projects we have a number of situations like this. First, we have kind of people, they still prefer to live in rural life conditions, although right in the center of the metropolitan city they are living in. So this is one of the choices. And secondly, if you ask people, would you like to prefer better quality life or the same quantity of the life? They will give the answer the quantity. So that is another difficulty. I mean, again, all people are waiting without spending any money. They want to get the same amount of the area and the conditions they are having at the moment for the future. So I don't know how it's going to be sorted out. Thank you for that. Could I bring in Albert Speer at this point? Albert runs a practice in Germany which in many ways is grappling with parts of this discussion. But very much in the new emerging worlds of new towns in China and elsewhere. Where in some case there is not even a dialogue, a political dialogue simply because of the political system. Can you say something about, commenting on what you've heard, on what you think perhaps is the right process to achieve the sorts of environments that work at multi-levels and just at the level of making someone very rich? Yeah, I think first we have to see the role urban planners have in the world. It's not the most important role. In my thinking, we are a consultant to society and the role we are playing is minor. The influences of politics, economics and the society are very, very large. And if you count this in sectors, I always say the sector we are responsible for are perhaps 5% of all decisions which lead to the development of Istanbul or Washington. Second, I would like to say that the developments in Africa or Asia, China, they are completely different from the approach from the origin than what we are facing in Europe or in an old city like Istanbul or I am now working a lot in Cairo. We are in China guests, we are working in a culture we don't really understand. And I think we have to behave also as guests, but they are listening to us. And it's not that the decisions in China are only made from top down. There are a lot of decisions taken on the city level and bottom up. So the system is another system as our democratic system, but it's not an absolute regime of few persons. And commenting what I have seen here, I think it is most important that all parts of society are involved from the beginning. And this means that urban planning has to be intelligent, effective and sensitive. In many cases, architects and planners are not sensitive at all. They have some utopia ideas and put it on an area without relations to the neighborhood, to the people, to the landscape, to the culture, to the environment and all the other things. I think that for cities like Istanbul or cities like London, it is most important that decentralization is going on. That not everything is concentrated in one place, but in many places. But this means, and this is done in London, that you have to have the opportunity of upgrading an area like East London. And their world events are most helpful. And I am also in this business of bidding for world events from Qatar to Munich. And even if the city is losing, it's gaining a lot because this brings the opportunity also in politics to think in new ideas and to bring new ideas in which otherwise politically couldn't get through from the beginning. I think politics are most important and long term thinking is most important, but at the same time, simultaneously you have to do things for the people now. Before I go to Tony Travers, as a master planner, you've reduced your responsibility to 5%. No. But surely what you design has enormous impact in terms of the potential for engagement. But only if all the other fields are integrated. It's not an artistic design. It's a design of, as you showed it, of integration of the whole society. And this is our responsibility, I think, to think interdisciplinary and not as aesthetic people seeing only this part of the world. I'm sure we'll come back to that with Enrique Norton in the next session. But let me bring in Tony Travers before returning to Koran. Tony is a key commentator in London on all things. Politico is a colleague of mine at the London School of Economics and perhaps in what you say, Tony, you might even address the issue of how the multi-layered complexities. Let's not forget Peter Bishop's plan, the circles in white on a black background. Those are all the people in London at the moment who need to get involved in a project. How one negotiates that. I'm going to write the book London Governing the Ungovernable City. So how do you deal with it, Tony? I realised after the publisher had suggested that strap line that John Lindsay had used it for a title of his before. But never mind. Listening to the discussion, I was struck by one of Peter's early charts which showed an earlier version of what planners in London thought planning was all about. And that, of course, was at a time when planning was a matter of experts and granities and elite telling people what the city should be like. That's what planners thought they were trying to do. I'm not saying all of that was implemented in that way, but that was the way it was done. I think what we've heard this afternoon is that planning and guidelines for growth have become about many, many more things. I mean, they're not just about conventional land use and zoning, the location of transport and roads but they're about a huge list of other things as well. Regenerating a declined industrial land in the case of Istanbul, moving the city from being an industrial or away from a predominantly industrial city towards a financial centre and a post-industrial city and diversifying the economy. But planning is also about aesthetics. Should there be tall buildings or no tall buildings and where the adornment of buildings we've heard earlier about today, density versus sprawl, how to fight people who don't want to change things for good reasons and some who want not to change things for bad reasons and indeed to cope with social change more generally. And the whole idea of a guideline for growth or planning now embraces all of these things. This is a much, much wider notion of planning than it ever would have been in the past. And I think it's such a wide list of the long list that it actually begs the question of when it would be too much. I mean, when it's trying to do all of them, distracts from each individual part of it. But the only other thing I think I'd like to say is that I'm absolutely struck by the fact that Anthony Williams, Henry K. Penelos and of course one close who was here earlier, people who have successfully run major cities have come back one way or another, come to the same conclusion and that is how do city leaders harness the developers, architects, community, city planners, all of the interests that were represented by Peter Bishop's many circles in London but any city could have drawn something a bit like that to create a civic coalition or what I think in Barcelona they call complicity. They're bringing people together so that they share an idea. So I think that how that is done, the coordinating and leading role by the articulate and the effective politician to deliver a plan is absolutely essential. And that finally leads us back to the point that Anthony certainly made and I think others have made and that is that comes down to the authority and the, in fact, the elegant authority of the individual who has the mandate to deliver it. It's without politicians and we have two here who've done it, but not all politicians are that good. But Tony, you must address though, I mean, I think we take that for granted. Without good politicians we don't get good cities, fine. You've heard a moment ago, a very clear comment saying that perhaps there's a democratic deficit in a city like this one, as in many others. This is a very live debate in London. There are a lot of people still feel excluded. Can you say a little bit about how you think the London planning process, which Peter and Andy are now very much involved in, deals with that. Let me put in a cue. One of the views is that East London is being regenerated for the first time ever after 30, 40 years because all other attempts have failed and the only way to do that is to take it out of the democratic process and unfortunately Andy is the chief executive of that machine which has no democratic accountability really for the moment, right? Is that a problem? It's such an obvious provocation. The question is, it's not really taken out of all democratic accountability. You set up, I think part of the issue of what Peter's chart shows in a way is who at the end is the interest because there are so many. Even let's take the company that's been set up to run the Olympics post the Olympics after the Games is a creature of the mayor, the government, will have representation from the boroughs. It'll have a lot of formal representation on its, that's formal representation on its board let alone trying to get things done requires you to go through an enormous amount of the informal because of the influences of the boroughs. I don't think it escapes that. It's a very interesting question of large scale projects of how much representation. I mean, Jennifer raised this the other day of public authorities which is, you know, people criticized in one hand canary wharf on the other hand it couldn't have gotten done probably without having in a sense been outside of normal democratic processes and established London as in a financial center and argue whether that's good for bad. I think it's striking a right balance but I would go back to one point of it which is maybe a very simple point which has to do with the vision of what you're trying to accomplish because of that vision of what you're trying to accomplish and how that's articulated by the government and agreed and understood among people in the city what you're trying to do. I think that's very important from the foundation and we can often get lost in all the different mechanisms and go back to what are you trying to accomplish and how and whose city is this? Tony and then Goran. Tony on this one point. I mean, the question of how to mediate local interests will of course vary from issue to issue. I mean, Enrique Penelosa this morning weighed an impassioned plea in effect occasionally to override powerful interests not necessarily local neighborhood ones but there are times when to run a city properly you have to use authority to push things through. So use of roads or clean air these are both issues where occasionally governments will have to take action which tramples on people's toes. Whereas to clear the Olympic site requires the use of what is elegantly known as eminent domain. I mean actually sweeping people neighborhoods off the site because otherwise nothing would have happened. I mean the games couldn't have taken place and is that good? Well, it's good for the city. It's not particularly good for the people who are swept off the site and you know if there is an earthquake coming along I can see there is a literally an insoluble political issue which at some level as they always come back to the point I made only politics can decide. Now in London one of the ways we do it is by having powerful lower tier units of government. Gerald Frug would undoubtedly have a lot to say on this if you were on the panel. I mean ways of allowing articulation of views from a neighborhood level that has the consequence that the city-wide level of government is weaker thus one of those charts that Peter Bishop put up. So in a sense I still come back to the point only politics and politicians can maneuver because they have the magic ingredient of electoral legitimacy. To whatever level of government they're at they have to do it. Now, okay but how is this going to be? So we brought one together, we brought representatives together. Organisation is okay, but if the institutions in the application are staying in their own technocratic things, then the promise has come that there is a different institution to reduce the risks of earthquake, a different institution for my achievement, a different institution for the protection of water sources, a different institution for the energy. If this section is going on for the 20th century, then you can't do this in the application. As much as you want from the coordination, take steps towards integration. The size of integration's material resources has not been realized. All of your dreams are similar to this. Like the 19th century, how do all the design ideas of the 19th century go into fragmentation today? How do closed areas be created today? Actually, you don't see a different kind of planning. I think it must be fun for the effort to change this. Even with a city-wide cooperation in the management status, it will not be very clear. I mean, they love us very much, they say to the people who know a lot about the teacher, they say that the teachers are always valuable, but at the same time, this is what it means. You don't know how to work. You teachers, you know how to talk, you know how to draw, but when you do work, we know better the technocrats. That's why you're actually a bit far away. From this model, how can we manage the culture, how can we manage the citizens themselves? We need a very strategic tool here. This is just ridiculous. Strategic tools, instruments are used. Countries that enter all these types of experiments. I think we should take lessons from this. There are a number of experiments that the cities use today. They cannot be said that they are perfect. But if there is no such thing, they can be put in the direction of integration. We, as part of the Culture President Programme, have the freedom to do this in Istanbul. That is, the freedom of the cultural centers, the old industrial facilities, the old industrial facilities that cannot be used. In order to turn this culture into a culture, this tool of the President Programme, this strategic tool, to think about the future of the city and to make it work, we have tried to develop an tool. Just like you did in London. Now, I think that this integration, participation, the representation of the groups representing the different cultural environments, we have to draw the gold that only intellectual production and professionals here will not be only a request, but also a role that will create these cross-seaters. How can this be a cross-seater? With a relationship model, the communication needs to be established between different information. We have to break the information ourselves. We will be renewed in your homes. Not by saying, we have to look at the relationship. We have to look at the future. We have to look at the future. We have to look at education. We have to work between disciplines. The second is the majority. I mean, I will do this project. I cannot say that there is no other model. There may be another idea. Your idea is very valuable, but there may be another better project for the water tower. People should know that this type of competition needs to be in the middle of competition. I only want to say that that, sorry, that in this case events like the cultural capital of Europe is helping a lot because with these ideal thinking you can get the people to follow you. This is the same in London, without the Olympic Games all your projects wouldn't come into the politics and into investment and that's why I think these things are most important. Final comment, Peter Bishop. Obviously, we're working in a very complex society where the democratic consensus has been largely fractured. And leading to the drawing the circles, the complexity and I think that when showing that, I possibly should have said that this is not necessarily a bad thing and whether the developer of the King's Cross scheme would agree with me I think the six years we negotiated the scheme was a very rich negotiation. He might have preferred two years. But during that we used the complexities of the various stakeholders to come to I think a very interesting understanding of the problem and in many ways it's a bit like solving a very complex set of mathematical equations that you sketch out your stakeholders, you work out what their agendas are then either side of the line you can cancel you can reduce because in many ways, if you agree a set of very simple objectives and visions then you'll find that 90% of the agendas will probably align and you can cancel those. The 10% you can then negotiate and you can negotiate those out and finally you'll have some pretty tough decisions at the end of it, but you can reduce. I think the process within the kind of cities we're trying to design is complex, but in many ways if we understand, if we know how to use it I think it can produce far richer solutions than some of the processes we've used in the past. I think we should conclude this session by just thinking together about the fact that as it happens the next city we're going to visit is Chicago and this year is the centenary of one of the greatest in the global north anyway one of the greatest urban planners of all Daniel Burnham who in 1909 came up with this statement which not many of us would like around the table or some of us would which is make no little plans but the only way you're going to actually get anything done is come up with a fantastically strong and powerful three-dimensional visionary idea which sort of pulls the city forward and in that case there was no doubt that Chicago was transformed as a result of what he came up with these extraordinary drawings which got the business community and the political community behind him I think of that, but I also think of the Spanish architect who had factored the master plan for the Olympic Games in 1992 with the mayor of Barcelona who was here and he in fact comes at it exactly the opposite way that's why I was asking both of you which is don't make any master plans they don't work by the time it's been approved it's going to take ten years the world has changed the economy has changed, society has changed we've just seen what's happened in the last six to nine months and master plans can be very inflexible so he fact says master planning should be done not with master plans but with what he calls progetti puntuali punctual projects, petit projet that sort of let many million flowers bloom that sort of approach now clearly that can't work without us of overall framework but I think I would like to conclude with Karan Gumus and I to think of this debate in terms of these two parameters make no little plans or do lots of petit projet but whatever you do plan and involve the whole cross section of community can you join me in thanking these very very strong speakers and commenters thank you