 Great. Thank you. So part of this final closing roundtable is just to really take some of what we learned today, some of what we're thinking and synthesize it. We've asked some additional people to make some commentary on this and Scott and Hillary and really start to think about this pedagogical connection to technology. So maybe start with Scott and just a couple of thoughts and then I'll open it up after you three go. I'll open up some questions for the audience as well. Yeah, it's a long day. A lot was said today. I guess at the end of the day, actually with the last three presentations, I was trying to think about how to pull all this together that's been presented today in the context of I think one of the ambitions of this symposium which is for us to think about how we are teaching, understanding and working with technology in an architecture school. And I have to say, I mean just a little confession here. I just started a new job as a chair of a school at Georgia Tech and so I'm literally in the process of trying to figure out how to diagram the school. So I loved your diagram. I have spent a year and a half trying to figure out how to draw connections between all the programs and it's not a futile exercise. My attempt really is to try to understand a lot of the things that we're talked about today which is how can we begin to establish a kind of diagrammatic relationship between all of the different concerns that we have to think about as architects today. In other words, the diagram that I'm drawing is not just within the School of Architecture. It starts to get into engineering, into science, into computing because it was made apparent today that the breadth of our concerns as architects has expanded greatly. At the same time, especially in the morning, we were seeing presentations about topics where in order to even get to a meaningful point, you have to dive very deep into some topic. And we can't expect to teach that in an architecture school across all disciplines. It's simply impossible. So I think that for me, the way I would kick this panel off is just to kind of say that in terms of how technology is disrupting architecture, I think we also have to think about how it's disrupting our educational model, in fact. You know, the emphasis that we've always placed on studio as an area of the curriculum that is intended to synthesize. In my experience, honestly, it never has. It really never has. I mean, as many times as we've tried to bring in topics from technology, topics from representation into studio, it never was really satisfactory, actually. And so I think that it's worth opening up the discussion about, you know, the way in which we structure our courses and the way in which we bring these topics to bear. And probably most importantly, and actually, Keel, what you were doing at Harvard, I thought was very fascinating. That was a first year studio where you were bringing, you know, that was pretty interesting. But the other thing that dawned on me, I think Billy Fairfax made me think about this, is that, you know, is it necessary that we teach all of our students the same thing? In other words, if our discipline is becoming more complicated in terms of the range of topics we have to understand, does it make more sense to allow students to actually become somewhat specialized in the context of a single course, so that we can actually start not only learning how to deal with these topics, but actually learn how to sort of collaborate and not simply work together as a group on the same exact thing. So that was something that I thought was, I think Billy made me think about that. It's something that might be a way out of this, in some ways, the limitations we have and just the time constraints of what we choose to teach. I mean, of all these things that we understand are valuable to architects, we have to ultimately make choices about what we prioritize to teach. So anyway, I'll just leave it at that. Lizanne, you want to give us your thoughts? That's a lot to digest. There's a lot of things that we sort of covered today. You know, I think, for me, one of the things I would just question is this word, and, I mean, still that architecture and technology, and what is that and, and is it something that's meant to join or is it really keeping us apart, or keeping those two domains apart or balkanizing them, making them silos as I think a theme that was returned to many times today. It's actually a plus sign on the end. I don't know about on the paper. Maybe on the paper itself. And, you know, when you think about the example, for instance, that Anna Dyson gave of that students' research with graphing, controlled, crumpled, graphing, you know, enclosure system, I mean, it's pretty amazing how the technology and the potential for architecture to be completely seamlessly integrated. Or we think about the advent in biomaterials or, you know, talking with David Benjamin just this week about, you know, biosystems that then are kind of borrowing from, or there's a combination of natural systems and technological systems. So I'm also curious about how we think about technology as really being something more embedded with architecture. I was interested also in this notion of computation. So I had so many multiple tracks I want to pursue that computation reveals the invisible. I thought, like, wow, that was a really interesting thing to think about. On the one hand, yes, we can even think about all of the forms of data that are being produced and collected and mapped and are kind of forming the very space that we inhabit. But we're also producing it simultaneously. So we live in a feedback system. We're actually producing and reacting simultaneously. And I think that, you know, that goes back to also this notion of materials that are embedded with technology where this sort of sensing and actuating is just like which comes first, you know, and that they begin to kind of talk to each other. So we didn't get too much into that, but teaching the seminar and teaching on technology, the students are really interested in that. They're grappling with it. And I would say for the most part, they're really interested in what it means at the scale of the city or a scale of infrastructure, more so than a kind of like, you know, space or domestic scale. And so I think that if we're to kind of, you know, it's interesting seeing, especially the last one, looking at this history at MIT and kind of going back, whether it's a natural system or a computational system, biological system. You know, I think that rather than the sort of paradigm of the 20th century of a machine for living, I think that we're creating these living machines and living systems, urban systems. That's great. Hillary? Thanks. Well, it's a fascinating day. I think I especially appreciate the last keel and media in your presentations about teaching, particularly core. And I think especially media in yours in the kind of larger context of the school's history and where to look. And maybe especially what sets a little bit the school apart in that thinking is being in the city, of course. And I think, you know, Craig, in your presentation, I just, I really appreciate and like this, you know, sort of calling out the obvious is taller, bigger. Does that, does that mean it's better, right? Not necessarily so. And how to sort of always be confronting that in a school like this one that has a kind of amazing history, but also has to deal with the context of Manhattan, right? And that we don't treat architecture as an autonomous practice any longer in a way, right? So I just had some more observations, I guess, and some questions, maybe, but just really the role of the individual versus the collective. I think it felt like, you know, these were really raised for me at least in assembly where there's a, you know, the idea of working in these kind of fab labs on your own, but knowing there's this network that's not necessarily a collective, let's say in the way that it would be a kind of collective project with one end result. I mean, certainly the slipper worked maybe in that way. And then even thinking about that on the flip side for Airbus. And I have to say I've been watching the videos about Airbus because my son is really into planes at the moment, so they're fascinating. But that idea then of, you know, sort of changing just part of the plane to accommodate a few select people. What is the kind of larger goal? Which somehow in a meandering way takes me a little bit to meet in your presentation on MIT and the house. And just thinking about that because some of the other schools you think about Yale, especially this history of the house and the single family house, I would say in its production, how that becomes a kind of integrated part of pedagogy. And yet that's about an individual but also about the collective at the same time and then dealing with what's happening in contemporary life. So that's sort of one observation that I would be curious to hear and talk more about is just the relationship of the individual. And especially today how technology is so personal and how that relates to where are we at shared sort of goals. And especially if we are to have a kind of discipline as architects that we work together on something as it's become so separated in many ways. I guess the other question for me is just about representation and how we choose to represent that. And I would say across all levels, even thinking about Craig when you were talking about Bannum, that that book is really about showing and representing architecture as something that's integrated carefully with technology. So that takes the form of the book through the photograph, a kind of very carefully curated photograph, which today we can't escape photos of our buildings in all conditions at all times. We no longer have that luxury or privilege of that view. Even to our students drawing thermodynamics in a way with a pixel, I think Keel in one of the drawings was interesting with the scale figure sort of blurred out by this pixelated image and how we're trying to teach skills on one hand. Although I like the reference today about in more than one presentation was sort of touched on like sneaking it in. So anyway, I think that's also something very relevant how we choose to represent technology. Because we can't escape it. So I don't know. I had other thoughts, but maybe that's enough to... And finally, Michael. Yeah, thank you. I made an attempt to... Why don't you make sure? To find some kind of general statements out of the incredible diversity of presentations today. But I would like to start by saying that it was really interesting to observe on my end of the lunch table today, nothing gave away that the room was full of architects. It could have been technical specialists, user interface designers, interaction designers and so on, which is remarkable because even 10 years ago this would be somewhat unthinkable. Okay, so my observations, they go mostly around the topic of whether we actually have a new way of talking about the new ways in which we're working. And I find very often that we're constrained by inherited dialectics or positional pairs that don't really seem to be suited for the purpose. Let me just work myself into that through a few observations. First of all, disruptiveness, how in an accumulative set of small steps or in a tremendous leap, what is it that we're looking at here? It's probably a mix of several things that need to be disentangled a little bit to be instrumentalized in a way. But what is interesting is that we seem to happily continue research work events like this as before with a set of change in themes and it would have been quite interesting to perhaps introduce a technical experiment into the setup today. As a way of getting into the kind of dialogic mode that was represented in several presentations today where you don't start by reporting, you start by making, observing and going into this. So we're trying to match two modes of dealing intellectually with things that are a little bit different. And recognizing this even is a good thing. Then this goes a little bit back and forth. One thing that seems significant is that we are moving out of what previously perhaps was a kind of generational cycle of a narrower spectrum of themes which were declared that for 10, 20 years and then sort of rediscovered and shown as new into a situation where we have a simultaneity of a wide spectrum of ongoing themes resurfacing and emerging very quickly. The turnover has become much more wide and much more diverse at once. And in this now the question really arises and this seems to be one of the questions that surfaced either explicitly or implicitly today. What do we do with the synthesis or with the multiplicity of themes? Do we remain generalists or do we let the profession mature similar to like medicine with a lot of sub-disciplines that create such an incredible variety that it is very difficult to keep track with everything? And here's where I perceive a kind of not so well working dialectic anymore. Perhaps we're going into a different situation where I try to put this somewhere in a specific way. Let me just try and see what that is for as my number five. Really what I wanted to say is whether we are becoming sort of like polycentric networked generalists or whether we become associative specialists across a range of topics. Maybe there's something in between the generalist and the specialist that we could tickle out and we could base that on the notion proposed by Nelson and I think Stoltenberg on the notion of adaptive expertise. If we bring this in as a particular criterion that distinguishes the design field and particular research in the design field from maybe more humanities specific or science specific ways. In fact the argument that they were trying to make is that architecture is not just simply a way of straddling between humanities and sciences but there is perhaps a third way with its own particular characteristics. Bringing these into the discussion could be really, really useful. Then I think I will fast forward in my comments here. I perceive the necessity to now take care that the efforts that we have made in terms of bringing technology increasingly into the educational and research field should take care of the fact that we are not in the majority do technology demonstration. This would be somehow a giveaway and we would somehow constrain our discourse to that which we have already demonstrated. To some extent that is okay but to another extent that somehow curtailed or diminishes the projective power outside of this that architecture can bring into the mix. The big question is then how to integrate research and teaching and how to do that with a strong practice perspective. And the question is what technological upskilling and uptooling on a very large scale and the increased capacity for research in the discipline how this will change architecture. In Europe at the very least we have now such a large number of PhD and postdoc researchers that they cannot all go into universities. They will go into practice and practice with research capacity and with technological skill. This must have an impact on the profession sooner or later. It's an accumulative effect of which we don't yet see quite the disruptive impact on the profession. We see certain things coming and certain things have already unfolded and matured but there is another tip, another tip of the background that is not yet arrived. And it would be good to be strategic about that in order to know what that means for the educational field and for our relation to practice. What type of practice do they go into? I mean they probably go into a lot of non-architectural practices. I think the ones that are actually going into architectural practices go into such practices that have an explicit research profile. For now this is working until these practices are saturated. Then these people will go into practices which may not yet have a research profile or may not yet have even a kind of agenda to be there. But by default they will bring the kind of research capacity into normative practice. That will be big. This is a huge thing coming, I believe. And so I think I will probably finish here. But all I wanted to say is that a little bit of forecasting of some of the accumulative things that are happening now out of the topics and the efforts portrayed today is really useful and also to challenge either the lack of differentiation or the kind of dialectics between generalist and specialist as the only two options and nothing in between or what this should mean in terms of education whether we go the way of maturing scientific discipline or whether there's maybe a third way more characterized by the capacities that are characteristic of the creative discipline that's a big question. Wow, that's very interesting. Let me ask my first question. I think we'll get to this idea between specialists and generalists very soon. My first question is more at Keele and Mijin about there's interesting programs and certainly the history of MIT. I went to MIT actually in course one as we were talking about and that history of the sort of embeddedness and the spawning of other programs. And Keele, I thought your talk was interesting in terms of this real struggle in terms of the challenge of new ways of thinking, teaching, and technology. It seems to me that much of technology is moving to something that is less tectonic, less tactile for an architect than it's ever been before. Technology is easy for an architect to touch. A piece to fabricate. A nice shiny stainless steel rod. But how do we teach about technology that you can't touch? That's your cue. I've certainly been thinking about this a great deal because I think the way that architects and engineers conceive of the topic of energy is preposterous. I think it's completely, basically they always talk about fuel and they don't have no idea what energy is. But this conundrum that architects have been trained to draw or model extensive things. But now we have to confront all these intensive things or things that we can't see which in my case I'm preoccupied with energetic phenomena but whether it's our biome or any number of these things that have been presented today I think it's a similar sort of disciplinary paradox that we've been trained to think in a certain way with certain models of pedagogy that have allowed us to separate things that are kind of technical or extensive. We don't have good models for how to do this. I'm currently teaching an option studio on just this really simple, intensive, extensive... It seems so simple but they are reporting to me that they feel like they're in first semester or first freshman year studio because it's all completely new to them. They have no way of comprehending and how to manifest things that they can understand conceptually. They just can't get out in a kind of design realm. These are advanced students at Harvard. I think that that's a fantastic moment. I feel like something pedagogical is happening on that front but I think it has a lot to do with getting rid of a lot of bad concepts and a lot of bad models that like fish and water we just can't even see. We just constantly are breathing them. They're in all of the accreditation criteria. They're embedded in our institutions about how we grant tenure. It's kind of endless about how the degree to which those structures kind of channelize how we think about architecture as a proposition. Even on that like you say no boundaries but I think another way I would say this is I think architects finally need to understand what boundaries are whether they're disciplinary or otherwise. It's true that we've thought of the building envelope as the boundary but anytime a student or an architect wants to talk to me about energy my first question for them is what is your system boundary and why? What the hell are you talking about? Cities are not large scale phenomena. Those are relatively about the same scale as buildings as are molecules. There's like much bigger questions about boundaries but I don't think it's about getting rid of these boundaries. I think it's actually starting to have a kind of actual apparatus for understanding what boundaries are relevant and why in certain circumstances not others. Or understanding their porosity potentially. Absolutely. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But I think the kind of invisible, visible thing is absolutely in front of most the most interesting parts of all these presentations were grappling with that and showing how architects and our adjacent fields are dealing with it. So I've been thinking a lot about convergence which came up today but also redundancy. And I think that's one of the things that I struggle with on the administrative side at MIT that you find, oh, they're doing, you know, you know, self-assembly or repeat. Like you see it happening in multiple places. And I think the institute is grappling with, oh, why are there biologists in civil engineering now and why are there, you know, scientists and architecture now, et cetera. And I think that crossing of those boundaries academically has been fruitful, most fruitful for the students who I think do represent the next. They will have less boundaries than we do in terms of the way we think. But I was also curious about the studio model. Like when I arrived at MIT, everyone said, why are you going to MIT? It's not a design school. How can you be an architect at not a design school? And I've been there 16 years now and I feel maybe I'm a convert now. But I think there is something about the studio sets up the creative genius model, right? And I think the lab, you, by necessity, need to understand everything that's happened before you related to your research topic in order to, you know, have an impact or some significant influence afterwards, right? And so, you know, I guess for me those are the kind of, but they're starting to converge. You know, like I go to certain critics studios and I'm like, is this a lab? Is this a studio? Should I try to, like, you know, regulate something? And, you know, I realize maybe deregulation for now might be the best way forward. So let me build on that a little bit. And going back to the notion of swabbing, so we swab ourselves at our individual schools and we have metagenomics, but curricula genomics of architecture and that spreads throughout the industry and cross-pollinates in and of itself. So speak, I'd be interested to speak to, if you had to describe from your perspective at your school what that genome looks like. You know, just can you do that quickly? Because they're all different, right? And I think there in lies, you know, one of the struggles that we have is that it's all taught differently, but actually in many ways that's what's wonderful about it. I'm looking at you, Scott, because I knew you were going to say... Well, I will say, I don't know that I know what the genome is yet, but I will say that it was quite a shock to go from here to there. You're being... You're being Columbia, yeah, because I was here for those of you who don't know. I was here for many years. Not New York to Atlanta. GCEP to Georgia Tech. I mean, and I would say that the biggest difference is that when you say research there, it's a very disciplined term. I mean, you don't say it casually. And that if you say you're doing research, there's a kind of expectation that there's a kind of methodology that there's an understanding of what research is before you actually say you're doing research. So I think architects, we tend to use the word a little bit loosely like we do a lot of things. I think that's fine. But what I did learn, and I think it's quite interesting, is just the value of being more disciplined when you're talking about real kind of research, like sustained, identifiable kind of research. And when you're talking about maybe what a more accurate term would be kind of exploration that architects do, we tend to explore. We don't necessarily have a clear methodology. We don't necessarily have... We don't contain the kind of variables very well. We tend to be more open-ended when we explore things, whereas research tends to be more defined and determined. And it's been an interesting lesson in how to play with people that do that kind of research. I don't do that kind of research, but we have labs. We have a PhD program. And they do very, very sustained research. And I'm trying to figure out, in fact, how to bring those labs more into a design discussion, because my observation is that they really should probably be in computing or in engineering. They're in an architecture school, and we need to determine why they're in an architecture school. And it's not to dumb it down. It's simply to create a language that you can understand each other when you're talking from a design perspective and when you're talking from, let's say, a computation perspective or an engineering perspective. Because I think that we use the word design interchangeably, engineers and architects, and we mean very different things. So the Georgia Tech student goes to University of Oslo and gets sick for at least a year. So what kind of genome does University of Oslo describe that to us? Well, maybe I won't describe the Oslo School, but I want to describe the research center. We have four research centers at the Oslo School of Architecture, one in each department. And even though research centers don't exist within the organizational structure of our schools, so I'm not really, first I thought hell, no, I think haven't, because there's nobody who can point on a piece of paper and say, here, this, you're not doing this. There's nothing that tells me I can't do certain things. However, we do teach. We supervise PhD and post-doc researchers. We run master studios and so on. But our group is relatively small. So I tend not to take regular PhD students. I tend to take stipend students that come in on a three-year ticket that is extended to four so that there's teaching obligation. And our PhD candidates sit in the master studio. We're the only studio, even though we don't exist as an organizational item in the school, we're the only studio that has a studio space. Our PhD candidates and our post-doc researchers sit with the master students. They work together, which basically means the master students gain experience with research. And the researchers gain workforce to produce the necessary volume of work to do something with. This is really nice because this allows us to strongly integrate the teaching and the research. Because mostly what people complain about is that the teaching and the administrative work is taking up so much time that there's little time and resource for research. That's not really a problem for us. We have solved this through the integration. And the other thing that we're trying to do with our research centers to build a strong interface with practice. We have collaborated over the years a lot with Nohetta and Oslo. And we're taking up conversation with Karen Timberlake. And we try and see what we can do together. We try to build another new platform that also will probably not be defined within the system. But for as long as we follow, for as long as we satisfy the boring criteria of reporting this and that, nobody steps in the way because the advantage of this operation is seen. We produce by far the most research in our small school. There's nobody else with their output, mainly because most of the work is interdisciplinary. So I'm trying to convince every single PhD student to do an article-based PhD, not a monograph. Because that allows us to get more interdisciplinary peer review into each element that is produced and to basically we're trying to maximize the interface internally and externally through our operation. And that seems to, so far, Mokomut seems to be working all right. I'm interested in that word labs because labs are sort of a fundamental part of MIT. I mean, how does that relate to what MIT's approach if you could describe it? Yeah, so I guess I would sum up MIT's approach as very bottom-up. And so there's a proliferation of labs as faculty become interested in X or Y topic, and then I can't even count the number of labs in the Department of Architecture at any given time. And then when they become less interesting, they kind of shut down or they evolve. And I was recently at something where Joey Ito at the Media Lab said, okay, we're calling it. It's no longer the digital revolution. We're now in the biological revolution, and suddenly they hire a few biologists and they have a synthetic biology lab, et cetera, et cetera. And so I think that's why I thought it was so useful to look at history. There is a pool of technology to go where the most interesting new frontier is at the moment, and it's all good. It's all good, no challenge there. But then when you look at the history, you're like, huh, that Monsanto house was amazing. It was done in plastic. It reached out to industry. How come we haven't been able to do that more recently with other industries today, right? So I think that kind of balance between the pool and then also the kind of push that we have to give that which has a longer time horizon, right? Like 50 years, 100 years, and there are qualities of the formal education that are absolutely vital to being a designer and synthesizer of knowledge and information and then producing something with it. I mean, I think that's really, by the way, that Monsanto house is so cool too. I immediately thought, how do they mold that? It's great. I mean, that is interesting to me as an observation, building off of your description of sounds to me maybe a better relationship between industry or at least research. Whereas my feeling is many American schools have cut off some of those connectivity between research teaching and the lab. The lab being something that is more sort of inward looking than outward looking. And I do bemoan the fact that I think architecture schools need to attach themselves more to industry to a certain extent. I mean, this might be very prevalent in certain areas of the United States that I don't know about. I mean, maybe, Lizanne, because you sit right in that nexus, I know you reach out to industry a lot. Your whole course is about that technology transfer piece. I was wondering if you, am I observing incorrectly? Well, I just wanted to say something a bit more about the pedagogical side, because you asked about the DNA of the school. And I think, by its very nature, the institution is cumbersome. And it's interesting the way you both describe what's going on in your schools. And it's sort of like, really, you're using the labs to fly below the radar. And to me, it's all about risk management. I was interested in listening to Airbus, because I'm like, how do they deal with risk management? Or even Casper trying to push the client in a certain direction. But you do risk management. And I think we do that in schools of architecture as well. We have accreditation. And we can only push the envelope so far in so many different directions simultaneously. And maybe part of the issue is just in a school like Columbia is the way the school is kind of subdivided. I mean, we have different schools, real estate, historic preservation. But let's look at the architecture school. We have almost 20 advanced studios. I mean, that's huge. And one wonders, like, if there was another way to maybe reorganize those or to legitimize the labs as part of the studios, could risk be somehow more part of the culture? It's just a question. I would like to make a comment about issues related to lifelong learning. Because institutions very often nowadays require us to compartmentalize curricula. They're not nimble. I mean, that's what you really need, right? Yes. So basically what we have tried to do is map the path of individuals. And I really mean individual people through their career from the university into practice back into some sort of interface, maybe an industrial PhD, back into practice maybe as a director of research, back into, and there are various routes. And these routes are beginning to show a certain kind of bandwidth of different ways of getting through this life. And the problem that was addressed earlier on, I forgot which one of the speakers. But somebody made an explicit point about what we learned today to be perhaps okay for the next five years, if you're lucky, a little bit longer. But then comes the point where you already need to rethink, rescale, retool, and so on. So this actually the connectivity, the individual routes to that. They are not mapped. We try to respond by packaged segregated bits that answer these needs, but we don't actually follow these needs and these trajectories, which means that we are actually placing programs and activities and opportunities out there which are probably somehow coming out of some sort of market research, but they're not coming out of the detailed mapping of how people today actually make their way through continued education and practice. I think we need to have more of this kind of meta-level perspective on what's going on there, because that I think has the potential to change and overcome some of the segregated curricula and syllabi and packages for education. I mean, interestingly, you talk about, I think, the individual. Because maybe ultimately that is the part of the solution to this idea of generalists versus specialized. It's actually neither. It's just individual. I mean, whether it's somebody finding a way through a path. One comment that came out of the conversation today that I keep coming back to in my mind was this idea of complexity. I think it might have been Kevin who said that the world is complex, whether it's our gut or building or city. It just is complex. Technology has this way of revealing more of it these days. We understand that it's more complex. It just always was that way. Maybe it's the point of understanding that complexity to a student, to a lab. Maybe a lab is a group of students to pursue a direction that simply can't be charted out by somebody. They can't. Because you chart something out, and you by definition of charting something out, you're sort of pedagogically saying you have to do it this way and maybe that's the wrong way. I mean, that seems in almost a way how you would describe GSAP to some degree. But the students here gravitate towards the program because they have kind of, I would say, intersection or maybe convergence again of issues around cosmopolitan but also entrepreneurial. I think that they seek out a certain kind of education that is offered here through the kind of 20 options for studio. I think that is kind of a huge risk. I mean, they're not all the same. They're widely different. Those are also, again, I think it returns this kind of question of representation maybe for there could be more risk potentially in the outcome of those studios, if anything. The fact that we are, it's not just the requirements of now because once you get into these advanced studios, those are the things that are not measured any longer. But yet we default to the kind of final studio review where a student pins up and presents their work in front of a row of 15, whatever. This is a very old-fashioned, I think, in my opinion, outmoded way to engage in design reviews and discussion. The question is also how you mentor people along that route. You don't prescribe, you don't narrow down, but you can mentor. I thought one of the interesting efforts that I have personally seen existed at the AASUM years ago in a small program that was called Future Practices in Florida where the students were talking with people assigned from the Architecture Registration Board about how they can build a practice around a particular type of project or research that they're doing. So, for instance, you teach a certain perspective, a new model of models. People will gain the new skills, a new kind of mindset, but how do they build a practice now around that from a business perspective and so on? So there are ways of mentoring this forward that can not be kind of closing down, but that can at least help usher things forward. Yeah, I think this is an important point because there is a dilemma. We're talking about technology and pedagogy, and then we're also talking, though, about the academia and industry. And I don't think we should be patterning what we're teaching on industry because I think practice and industry, you know, certainly the design and construction industry is not a model of progressive ways of doing things. I mean, it's just dysfunctional to be quite literal. So we can't be looking at that industry as a model for what we're teaching for. So I think one thing that, and this to me is directly related to technology, that we need to be teaching, designing technology in a way that kind of anticipates a new kind of practice, a new organization of industry. You know, if we're talking about integration, you know, that was the first panel, you know, industry has been trying to integrate itself for a couple of decades now, very unsuccessfully, and, you know, Airbus, I mean, the Airbus presentation, you know, they iterate with, they have a year time frame. They iterate, they make changes, boom, it's done. You know, for us, it takes a generation, literally to make any meaningful change in how practice actually is structured. And I, you know, we could say that's just the entrenched kind of siloed nature of our industry, but it could also be a symptom of our, or a result of our educational system. So I do think as part of this discussion about how we're reformulating technology within our architecture, we have to kind of include models that anticipate, you know, a more progressive type of practice. Not one that exists now, but one that we're actually planning for. So I think, you know, curriculum around practice, new forms of practice is important as just the technology. So I've been speaking over the break about this idea of generational shifts. A colleague was talking to me about, you know, the idea that certain generations are simply just different from one another. And we, how would you reflect on that in terms of this issue of pedagogy? I mean, because we're talking about this almost individualized element, which tends to think that we're sort of maybe in a generational construct there. I just would be interested to hear your thoughts on that reflective of maybe some of the programs and some of your students and also your history, and going back to when you went through school. You think it's different? I have a couple of thoughts about that that actually connect to other parts of the conversation. I mean, even the idea of the specialist or the expert. I mean, the expert was invented post World War II and like an expansion of sort of businesses, but also not forms of knowledge and that sort of thing. But Yvonne Illich described the expert as somebody who prescribes need first and foremost. And then you need to purchase that very expensive need from me because I control and sanction that need. And that's what the expert was. There was a generation of experts, and I think a generation of practice and pedagogy that was based on that assumption that we bring in a few kind of experts and consultants in the studio and they prescribe basically enough disabling knowledge that you know you need to hire your structural engineer, but not enough about thermodynamics to actually know what's going on in an energy model. So there's a generation of that as a kind of model. I think the current generation and why we need to be thinking about practices moving forward is that this is a generation for which no one is expert in the most important questions about how to connect some of these very disparate, extremely relevant and connected phenomenon and systems. Nobody knows how to do that. And so once you accept that as the premise, then anybody, any individual in a lab or studio could have any legitimate insight on that as much as somebody else. And so that's a completely different structure for how we think of teaching or direction of knowledge, and I mean this is much more innate to the Scandinavian model of pedagogy in general where students are there to learn and advance as much as faculty aren't necessarily there to teach. It's a completely different and very puzzling model from us from the inside. But I think just to put this back into the kind of genome of our school's discussion, I'd say that the professional MRC at the GSD is Vitruvian and its organization. There's design, there's technology, and there's history, and you can put any triad you want in there. And that will not change. I'm sorry. But there are other programs, like the EMDES program, which is like SMARX or any of these post-professional design research programs. They have this kind of nimble quality. I think the students, when they come into EMDES, their first thing that we tell them is that their job is to design a new type of practice, and that's their job for three or four semesters. And that's a completely different construct. And I think it's very relevant today. It's very relevant because of diminishing undergrad and professional numbers in general and, you know, an expansion. I mean EMDES is now almost 200 people. It's as big as the MRC program. And I think that that's significant. But there's a lot that we can do with that. So I don't think we have to necessarily deregulate, but I'm totally, I will join that fight. By the way, the other side of that, Eugene, is that we also need to start to regulate practices. There's no reason that faculty should not be going, like the NAAB, going to practices and sanctioning, you know, what practices are working. You know, show me your non-Western content. Show me your model of integration. I think we really need to push back on that as well. But that's a part of this discussion about the push and pull of industry, practice, research. There's a much more rich dialogue to have there. But I do think these post-professional programs are the kind of place that we, at least of the tools that we have right now. That is the biggest lever that we can pull in this domain. And do you think that post-professional program, you know, mimics a lab environment? Well, at the GSD, it's, I think in some cases, the people who are teaching the post-professional content area also have a lab. The students are doing both. It's kind of pointless to say one's a course and one's a paid research assistantship. It doesn't matter. And I think that by itself is a huge lesson. And I don't think we really need to necessarily have courses in that program. I mean, you know. It's interesting because we start, we come around this, this, the topic and eventually you start talking about the lab isn't really about architecture. It's about the architect. It's almost retraining. The lab is used to train the person because the profession is so complex and so deeply synthesized. You know, its skill set is about synthesizing. There have been a lot of the ones in our department. I feel like resonate with what Kevin was saying. They're almost architecture. So they're not exactly what you're describing as like, you know, experts in the jave. They're like exploring almost architecture arenas that have potential around building technology or computation, et cetera, but not quite clear there. And I think that's the long view of research practice, right? And I think it's right. We have to balance that long and then the short and accreditation. But there's also another aspect and that's where you allow for the opening. So I think what connects the question of how you go about the changes in generation and also how you orchestrate the relationship between educational research and practice is mostly determined by the type of dialogical model that you choose and where you allow the freedom for core determination of where things are going. For instance, in the definition of a design problem or in the definition of a research problem. So because our school is relatively small, we need to very often thematically earmark the PhD stipends and the postdoc positions, and we have to do it so that we don't close the door on the dialogue and involvement of practice in this and also the individual that's coming into this position bringing something in that is not just a kind of thematic leaning, but it is also maybe sort of determined by a generational specificity. There is where the trick lies and that's where we need to make the time. That's really interesting. You know, this idea of sort of back to what you started with, there's no and, there shouldn't be an and. Certainly not a minus. And to try and take that blur away but feeding off of something you just said, Hillary, that we're sort of the studio may well be an outmoded mechanism. If we're to sort of destroy that and and we're to think about something that's maybe post studio environment, what could it look like? Just to clarify, I don't know that I said destroy the studio, but I just said the... Alter in a minor way? The ways in which we engage it and to review and discuss what it is students are making and that this is, you sort of think about why is it that there's a final review where students are pinning things up on the wall and now projecting or a combination of those things in front of a single row of jurors and that there are so many other ways now we communicate why when the studio respond in some ways. So just to say I'm not saying get rid of the studio and replace it entirely. I don't mean to put words in your mouth like that but I'm trying to... I guess I'm looking to something that helps to blur those boundaries. That helps to break down... I think your point about the expert is true. The studio crit invariably sets up that didactic of expert to non-expert. And yet, I mean that student has as much, frankly access to information knowledge as any critic today instantaneously. So how do you... What does that look like? Well, I mean for myself and Billy who's been teaching Sol Craig, I mean I just... I think it is really important that students understand like three fundamental first principles about thermodynamics or about material science. It's really powerful. That can unlock a lot of things. But I would say, I would argue that we have spent most of our pedagogy in the last few decades in architecture, again disabling students by forcing them to only understand that they need to hire a mechanical engineer, structural engineer, etc. I don't think we... Once I teach them a few things, basic things about thermodynamics, it can actually... I mean they're very intelligent. It can unlock a lot but it's more about a mode that they're empowered to actually or permitted or sanctioned to think about those things. I think the kind of expert model in the studio is training them to tell... Yes, they get a kind of section with arrows and shit on all of the boards and everything. It looks like they have some degree of declared technical confidence. But again, I think that's just an index that they've been able to follow what the consultant told them to do or whatever. I don't think that's a... That is the lesson that's being taught rather than deeper, more fundamental principles about biology or robotics or thermodynamics or whatever it might be. I think there's a lot more to be gained by investing in some of these really basic concepts that are extremely powerful in terms of enabling them rather than disabling them. Beyond thermodynamics, what do you think those are? My head is deep into the pedagogy of thermodynamics, but my close colleague Sal Craig about how he teaches the architecture of materials and where phenomena occur and how phenomena occur within material systems at all scales. It doesn't matter if it's mass flow around the planet or molecular structures. Again, I think once students understand something about that fundamentally, they can start to design at all of those different scales. Rather than just being told that there's a set of trades and that we're going to organize their construction courses according to those trades from the 19th century or something like that. I mean, it's preposterous how we introduce architects to some of these concepts, right? And again, but for me, it's things, modes of knowledge that are enabling versus disabling or crippling. I mean, the same could be said about structures. I mean, is it really the same thing? In other words, I agree with what you're saying. I mean, I think it's not about turning architects into, you know, mechanical engineers or structural engineers, but it's elevating the ability to carry on a discussion. Again, as if we're going to, you know, follow the generalist model for a second. I mean, even as a generalist, you have to know enough to have an intelligent conversation with experts to actually engage in a meaningful way what we talk about when we say interdisciplinary or even integration. I mean, if you're really going to do integration, I think there is a level of knowledge that's necessary to have that conversation. There's methods. I mean, even declaring yourself a generalist is already a specific thing. It's a specific form of knowledge. It's a specific way of engaging multiple fields and adjacent knowledge, and it's also a methodology for encountering any body of knowledge rather than, you know, so there is a specificity to that that I think, you know, can and should be taught as a basis. I think sort of final question before I open it up to people. It is interesting. I mean, I'll go to your machine that here. The history of the school, which I didn't know much about actually, which is fascinating, is interesting, but it seems to present something that at times, and I feel the same way the weight of Columbia here or Harvard or Georgia Tech, is that ability to adapt to the schools can be challenging. And for me, I think what I've been trying to talk about today is this change is very active at the moment. I mean, beyond core foundational principles, I mean, there's a lot of stuff going on. So talk to me a little bit about how these pedagogical standards or genomes will adapt because they have to. I mean, you can have a piece of your program, I guess, that is aimed at, you know, Palladian-style architecture, but it sounds to me that Harvard has shifted and that sort of generational or other adaptation is happening. I'm kind of curious about ideas there because it sounds to me that that is something that is interesting in this area, that adaptation. Anyone? No one? No one likes to adapt? Well, again, I think the core of that question, Craig, is ultimately NAB and then carb get very involved in that question. We're all willing to move and adapt very quickly, but I think when you get down to filling out this completely obnoxious spreadsheet, there's a huge break on the velocity of any meaningful change at the realm of professional sanctions, degrees of architecture. But again, at the post-professional level, I think we all enjoy a certain level of speed and nimbleness that is appropriate for the time. So I think the question about deregulation I think is totally fine in that sense. If we want the professional programs to start moving as quickly as they should, then that seems inevitable. And I think if you get a few private Ivy League schools and a few of the great state schools and just a few schools around the country to get together and do that and run the experiment of the non-NAB degree, I think a lot would come out of that five-year experiment that whoever of these deans and chairs are willing to do it, I think would be fantastic. But if we're unwilling to take that step, then we just have to accept that NAB is going to be controlling the core of your question. Unfortunately. I always compare architecture to the media lab because the architecture machine group had to go out of architecture in order to become the media lab. And there they don't have the kind of sub-disciplinary structures that we do. And so it's a free-for-all of individual labs, right? And so there is no secondary, tertiary organization or even curriculum, you know? So I do think like that model is useful for certain things, but many at MIT and also know that within engineering the media lab has a different status, let's say, than it does in the outside world where it has an exciting reputation, et cetera, but in engineering they'll always say it's not rigorous enough, et cetera. They haven't generated as many papers. And it goes back to those institutional metrics that you laid out in the beginning, starting with tenure, starting with departments and those things are tied to funding, et cetera. So I think, for me, it's about increasing one's tolerance for failure. And if we can do that in our own departments a little bit, I think that will, I think, start to open things up. I haven't had to go through a NAB accreditation yet, so I can speak very loosely about this. But it does seem like, you know, NAB has to set their kind of requirements somewhere. And I don't know where they get it. You guys might know this, but I suspect that if a school is doing really progressive work that doesn't quite fit within that profile, they actually adjust what they require. I think they respond to what they see when they go to schools. So I would say that, you know, even in the professional programs, I agree the MS programs and the post-professional are a lot of fun in terms of being able to explore things. But even within the professional programs, I don't know, I just think that this gets back to my point about, you know, if we're going to be driven by the limits of industry, which probably NAB is more industry driven than academic driven, you know, we're just contributing to this kind of feedback that's not going anywhere. And so, you know, I think it's schools. I know the last thing that, again, I'm saying this very loosely because I haven't gone through this, but you don't want to not get NAB accredited. I know that. But at some point we've got to figure out a way to break that because that might be part of the cause of this cycle that doesn't allow us to explore. Well, I mean, I don't want to say too much about NAB, but I think the... They might be listening. Potentially, right. But I mean, they have changed somewhat. I think the degree to which you have to subscribe to certain things in every single course has been changed. So there is some flexibility to that. I think they do listen, which is good. I guess, for me, it's kind of contingent upon... I want to return to this issue of representation again because I think in reality we're making things real. And I mean, I think I was struck the most in your last two presentations about just the... And maybe particularly we did with the kind of repetition of the images of making things and building on campus, the opportunities, whether it's faculty or students, to have that, to put out in the world what you're making, whether it's books or actually building things, that students today are so incredibly facile. This is a little bit about the generational issue. I think incredibly facile, skilled, have incredible opportunities. Maybe too many in some ways to learn all these different skills, which they may feel they learn or don't learn, or we're sneaking in learning things without really trying to make them like the comment about you can't really tell someone what to do because they inherently will not want to do it, right? But those degrees. But then the question is, what happens to students who graduate and don't have access to all of those things? I think this is also something interesting. I mean, maybe just Ryan's in the audience, but someone who I think did very interesting work in graduate school and has gone on now to try to do something on his own. Maybe you wanted to say something putting you on the spot. Sorry, but I just think how many students are able to actually do that and support that to be able to continue to change and where do certain offices support that? I mean, this goes back a little bit to the research comment about your students graduating and that eventually will feed a new kind of environment or collective energy. Yeah, I'm wondering if we're talking about the relationship between sort of like the innovative part of education and bark education. And if you want to drive, if I may use this term, I know it's not very, doesn't sound very positive. But what I basically mean is sort of the gross education. If we want to move that more into the direction of the innovative part of education and research, at least in the Scandinavian context, we can very often see that our best partners in doing that are leading practices, like Snohetta, like 3X and GX. But in this kind of alliance, we're able to craft arguments for the bark education that somehow finds its way to the responsible organizations, to the governments and so on. So maybe the context is different, but I find this quite an interesting realization. So are there any questions? I'd like to open it up. I'm quite concerned with where they meet, because actually I'm finding it a little more frustrating than I thought it would be. And I think it was interesting to hear, Michael, from your perspective, to hear about firms that are working with the school in terms of research, right? I know that students have this thirst for research, and now I'm starting to know about the harsh realities of practice and what it takes to an organization that tries to serve people in practice, and just how hard it is to pay the bills and integrate research. I don't think there actually are so many offices that do real research on their own independently. Sometimes there are colleagues who are affiliated with organizations that help them do that. So what are we setting up the students to do? And how are the universities a part of it? Should, and these are my questions, should practices be trying to really fund research branches and make that lucrative and figure that out, or should practices be more linked to the universities where there are these labs that are doing these things and be able to ask direct questions? That's what we're here, right? Because then it's, you know, are you doing the work of, you know, but I really, this is sort of where I am in terms of that, and I'm just curious, because I'm familiar with a lot of you and your schools, about that question, about hearing from practices that have questions that aren't necessarily just via faculty members who have practices. Are you talking about that if we have strong research programs that we're setting up students to go into an industry that doesn't support research? Right. And the value of research for practice and where people in practice who have questions, especially with technology specifically, how they would learn from maybe what's happening in the labs at the schools without setting up their own, trying to set up their own research branches? Well, one thing that I could say is that somewhere within this bubbling cauldron there is a layer of practice that is really interesting to map and observe. We're making a big effort in our research group to do that, both globally through a series of books that is looking at how more and more practices of different sizes and in different locations of the world are building business models and facilitating research as a way of being competitive. So doing these books is on the one hand meant to help, together to somehow externalize these kinds of strategies so that the practices that are doing it can become even stronger, but that other practices can feel motivated that if practices from the size of five people to the size of a thousand people all can find different business models around that, that they could also find their way into it. So then it's a question of dialogue and we try to then go one scale down regionally where we have a series of symposia also focused on the question of how research can go into practice. We did one in Sweden, one in Norway so far the next one coming up in Denmark where we look at specific issues, national regional issues that bring opportunities as much as obstacles in terms of making research a stronger part of the business and we try to address this with local bodies. For instance, the first symposium in Sweden was done in collaboration with the Swedish Association of Architects that had already perceived that it's very difficult for the smaller practices to find appropriate models. So we have collaborated to try and start this discussion and to help. And then on the local scale where at least we have started this now in Oslo where having a series of roundtable discussions in connection with the Norwegian Center for Design and Architecture where we invite a small group of practices in every time we discuss with them and we try and co-develop this model with them. The side effect, the positive effect for us as we increase the interface with practice for our research environment we are potentially able to increase the number of industrial PhDs thus collaboration and so on. So it's actually an additional effort that operates on multiple scales but it's actually trying to help practice forward and to help us forward as part of the same effort. I just want to say that I think a lot of research that benefits students in school whether it's through the studio or through the lab isn't necessarily related only to the content or the subject of the research but it's about a methodology and a way of thinking. I mean, I think the first presentation of Diller-Scafidio's work they very much base their work on asking questions and how to ask questions. When I'm looking at a recent graduate and I see that they worked on a firm and they did this kind of research or they did this kind of investigation in school it's not so much like what they were researching but it's the methodology and the openness of their thinking and how they went about finding unconventional ways to solve those problems and I think that's a great benefit. I mean I'll just quickly add one thing because it's a good question. I think that architecture firms have not figured out a way to monetize what they do beyond a very basic service-based sort of business model and you know if you look at firms that have tried to do this and they've set up these research labs they've tend to like last for when the economy's good and then they're the first thing to go because they're simply pure overhead but that's a really a failure of a kind of business imagination on the firm's part to not figure out how to monetize what they do. This is a much bigger discussion but I do think that's a big part of this. There's a lot said today about architecture and technology whether it has a plus sign or an and and I think one of the great takeaways is this notion that a school might have a genomic signature but Craig since your comments this morning very little has been said about disruption and if we were at a business school at Harvard Business School disruption has a very specific meaning in our culture of innovation, upending and existing market and you know in that upending there are winners and losers if you look at Eastman Kodak where the music industry or journalism and there are certain winners David Benjamin this morning spoke about Google Brain as a machine learning artificial intelligence and the kind of looming automation that everyone is perhaps just ignoring sticking their heads in the sand will likely disrupt certainly the building professions if not the design professions so anybody want to mention that at least? Covered disruption today? Do you have an automation or just disruption? AI, you know there's a lot of writing out there that says the professions as we know them will cease to exist within a couple of decades Well, I made your content Well, I actually don't I don't necessarily think that I think the integration and the continued integration of types of disciplines is driving ahead of that curve of disruption I mean if anything that disruptive process may well lead to different types of supply chains and industries which it already has it might lead to different types and ways of practice but I don't think it's going to lead to the core principle that the synthesizer is going to be at the head of the game I mean I still don't think that I mean you know look my car might tell me where to go but I don't always listen to it because I know better how to go to certain places and it adapts as I go along I'm smarter than it sort of so hopefully at least for the moment for now but I think that's a model of thinking of that way because we can get overwhelmed by that idea of disruption and we can start pens and go home but it's an interesting question whether architecture in general is in front of or behind the curve of technology I'm actually a little more pessimistic I think we're behind oftentimes I mean the autonomous vehicle is far along our cities have not changed you know I sat on a panel here five years ago debating Bloomberg's midtown Manhattan plan and everybody was obsessed about the traffic that's going to be on the six train stairway in Grand Central Station you're just like like in ten years there will be such a different way of thinking about how we collectively move around the city and you know maybe there'll never be a parked car again I mean I'm just kind of being extreme but you know it's the same thing with you know if we don't have antibiotics on our materials but maybe we have probiotics on our materials we don't think about building I don't know how much we are exploring those in an anticipatory way I mean my thought was that disruption has already happened and had a very significant impact on the profession and the discipline right so you know that they thought that Monsanto House would be in 87 and then we have the Toll Brothers just da da da da tax so I guess we've been I think for the last few decades struggling with exactly that and I think issues of labor around construction that's going to significantly impact our profession as well and then I've seen some apps recently another faculty member showed me like basically the software that anyone used to design anything it was amazing you know we should only use this app to design our buildings so I think we're already there and I don't think it's not that we don't have we don't want to talk about it I think it's more we haven't figured out the response yet as a profession and a discipline actually I think that as a professional it would seem that the front seems to be accelerating and the rear is stationary so the disruption hasn't happened yet but we would like to be a little bit disrupted if we could please I mean I think that it's not really a question of like are we ahead or are we behind I think that in general we're kind of parallel and some parts of us are we're in the back and some parts of us are in the front you know I don't think it's crazy if you look at an off-driving car if you look at the fact that the gauge of our train tracks is based on the size of two horses in Rome because of ruts in a tunnel in England all of a sudden like these technologies they don't change very fast in a way if we change too fast in advance we design buildings with insufficient redundancy that become obsolete very quickly so if you make a building for a technology then that technology changes in five years in a way it's better to meld the technology into the process and to adapt the technology for the process and that kind of comes along to the point that I was going to make which is in this conversation about generalists and specialists I think that it's good to step back and say architects are kind of specialized generalists and that in a way NAB shouldn't not be a requirement because maybe architects are good at being generalists and that they can draw things and represent things and think about things but they also have to be specialists in knowing that a building can stand up and that it means code restrictions and all these things but I'll say also that we're training a kind of a whole group of people to come out of schools like for example myself you know I have a kind of a specialization in robotics and sensing materials or whatever but I also consider myself to be someone who can apply those things generally and as such I'm able to get contracts with you know research companies and things outside, very far outside you know I'm doing the project I'm working on now is like cutting up cows and Australian meat factories which is like super non-architectural but the only way I got that isn't because I'm a beef expert or robot expert but it's because I could kind of generalize kind of architectural thinking towards those things and I think that we see a lot of students coming out and applying those skills in kind of different industries but they can only apply them because in how to make a plan and how to make a section and how to think about kind of architectural space and how to think about generalization so I guess the question is in this kind of age where we're talking about these specializations that students need to learn thermodynamics I don't think all students have to learn them we want to expose them to a lot of basic things but how do we expose students to enough architecture that they can take architectural knowledge and have a very specific trade that is in a way maybe unique to themselves but that is an architectural kind of skill around some kind of specialization that is one of their own and I guess to add on to that question is I think the other question which is the elephant in the room is how do we bring ethics into that question because how do we make students who come out not just thinking about how to do something but I think in general architects should be the ones who tell the engineers this is how you do it ethically this is how you do it in a way that in 10 years will still be sustainable this is the way that you do it so where we still have labor in 20 years we could change our design processes to not include labor but if we make it as Kevin said if we think about computer intelligence as a separate form of intelligence we should be investing in the humanities right now and architecture is great at being between those two things and how do we think about the ethics and the kind of humanity behind those specializations well just to connect these two questions and observations a little bit I mean I just from persona I have a huge allergy to concepts like disruption and innovation and these sorts of things that tend to come out of Harvard Business School or whatever because I think maybe for me sustainability is a more clear example it's something that actually took well intended principles from the left and maybe from the right a little bit well intended principles and ascribe and sanction a whole set of processes that actually do not serve those intentions well whatsoever that do not fulfill those ambitions at all and actually have a lot more to do it ends up just being a kind of alibi for neoliberal developments glass skyscrapers go up etc and it's just an ethical wasteland and so I think we have to be very careful about these concepts about how we use them or we don't use them but I think they're very connected questions and that's why I don't think architecture just because we're dealing with ideally in my world 2,000 year increments or something like that disruption isn't that it doesn't fit into the same cycles as iPhones and bubblegum and all these other things where I think actually HBS has a lot of credibility and expertise or whatever it is but don't you think Keele like architects should have solved the affordable housing problem like you know because it will be solved by the other disciplines and maybe that's fine but I do think there is something when I was revisiting the history that made me wonder why it's come back like with the most recent Biennale as a big agenda you know reporting from the front and there are still massive housing shortages and it is not from a design studio perspective interesting enough I don't know I can't figure out why in 50 plus years at least at our school we haven't gotten much further than we were 50 years ago but part of it the basic part of it you described it as solving the housing problem I think just that modernist idea that you have problems and then you have solutions is already again a kind of out loaded idea I just think we have design and how we should best live together you know something like that I don't pretend to ever solve a problem I mean the equation is just way too complex to ever have the hubris to pretend that we're solving maybe contribute positively to a significant issue around shelter in the world you know as opposed to designing you know really exquisite houses for the 1% I think there are I don't know at 6 o'clock if we can start this debate we'll be here all night housing as a subject is very complex I think and there's not seems like it could be a sort of universal solution it's really not the case for various reasons one is thermodynamics but I think it's incredibly complex and I think there are very good examples of housing which are different than houses obviously just to make that distinction because that is very important what you can do in one project as an experiment and a one off versus how you repeat that and scale is a really big issue in that and that's something interesting to think about in the context then of technology and how that works but there are examples but there are maybe too many issues around there are too few though I think well that may be the case so that's why it's great to have that as a studio in the school and part of a core curriculum I think if possible I would just like to make once more case about how technology might contribute to maintaining a certain tendency in no way until recently we had full employment in architecture no not was that because we have so many offices that employed no it was actually because a large number of the graduates expected to go into practice as a one person show and they did and they could because there was a large number of small projects to sustain this now no way is saturated with cottages everybody the cousin has two cottages and there's not so now all of a sudden we don't have full employment but is it because the offices don't have enough work and they need to lay off people that's not the main problem the main problem is all these kind of one person offices don't have context in comes the FabLab development and I think in no way once the majority of the recent or the soon to be graduates have lost their technophobia this will really fly people will go there because it enables them again to be a one person maker producer and so this emergence of the new technology may actually be the very reason why a certain cultural trend in society is able to continue these are other kinds of developments that we should also observe because they fall off the radar otherwise because we're looking for the big moment of disruption when something very different is actually happening unfortunately unfortunately we've come to a close as we're just gearing up feels I would offer everybody an invitation upstairs to the fourth floor where we have some beverages for everyone and to maybe continue some of this conversation and to feed on our biological systems I take this point pretty seriously this idea of disruption behind us ahead of us maybe we're not even addressing it but and I'll have to think about that I think hopefully today helped people reveal some of these issues from our own individual perspectives our own individual genomics pedagogical genomics of our schools I thought that for me was really powerful and so I wanted to say thank you for all the speakers people who braved the storm yesterday and flew around the world to be with us and I also want to say thank you to Paul and his team here at Columbia put together a fantastic program and really helped to make the day very successful so thank you to the Columbia team and also to the Columbia faculty who came here today and helped moderate it was really great everybody into the process so thank you all please come upstairs to the fourth floor and join us you're all welcome and thank you again to everybody for the day