 Good afternoon and dear Suzanne and dear Raoul. I have clearly in my mind that the problems we have in Paris are small, comparing with the problems in a city like Addis Ababa or other cities of Africa and Asia. But I think that the experiences of the European cities could be interesting as well. I will describe briefly three social and urban challenges. Well, I will describe briefly three social and urban challenges we have in Paris and three types of solutions. The first one is obviously the ring road. You know that Paris is surrounded by a big ring road, one of the most frequented ring roads in the world. One million vehicles per day and it's an historical and psychological barrier that cut Paris from the suburbs. Huge pollution problems are associated for the people who live besides, but also for the Parisian in general. One of the most central urban highways among European cities and this is clearly an urban barrier. Problems of crossing, problems of safety, congested crossroads, which should be plaza, impossibility for people to go by foot from one side to the other. You have a belt and you can see it on the picture of social housing all along the ring road and this is an accumulation of inequalities because you have this problem of pollution and of course the problem of the noise. From one side of the ring road to the other one, prices can be divided by two. But the ring road is not our only frontier. We also have an architectural frontier. The Haussmann style, which is known worldwide, is typical of the center of Paris. Its density, its urban shape, its regularity have made Paris architecture famous. In the outskirts of Paris, it is not the dominant architectural style and you can see on this slide some grand ensembles inspired by Le Corbusier, such as this one, they are typical of the working class areas of the city of Paris. They are also symbolic of an architectural style but they face major problems nowadays in terms of renovation, care of public space, security and so on. You can recognize this kind of architecture through those red bricks. They are in general very beautiful buildings but also quite damaged inside and suffer of problems of humidity. Those architectural differences are important in the psychology of inequalities in our metropolis. The second challenge is east-west inequalities. In addition, we have a global problem of spatial inequalities both in terms of population and users. Historically, concentration of offices in the western part of the metropolis, La Défense and the Cartier Central des Affaires and of social housing in the east of Paris. And this map represents the financial potential in habitants. In the territories printed in red, the medium income is more than 30,000 euros per year. While in the territories painted in yellow, it is less than 15,000 per year. This is of course a big challenge for the metropolis because we have to convince the western territories to build more social housing and to accept not to have all the offices. And we have to convince the firms, the companies to go to the east. Third problem is where to build because you know that Paris is one of the densest cities in the world thanks to Baron Osman. And this density is sometimes higher than the density of Africa or Asian cities. Paris is small, the inner Paris is small and dense so we don't have much space to build inside the city to create parks. Every construction is complex and expensive and people are fed up with density or more density. So it's a big challenge because a lot of people want to live in Paris and there is a huge demand for social housing in Paris. So what are the solutions? I will review three kinds of solutions. Let's say coercive ones, incentives one and what I call urban commons. In Paris we have strict planning rules. Depending on the area we impose shares of social housing or we restrict the square meters of office that can be built. For example, this building which is very recent in Paris mixes social and private housing. Half and half, 50% of social housing, 50% of private housing. It is impossible to know from the street which ones are private or public. We guarantee the same urban quality to everybody. The general objective of 30% of social housing at the scale of the city is difficult to reach but we are investing a lot of billions of euros in order to reach this objective of 30% of social housing. On some sites developers have to build 60% of social housing if they want to do a development. The second strategy is a strategy of soft power giving incentives to create private projects of general interest. The idea is to have projects which serve better the general interest we have decided to change the rules of the game when we sell public land. Rather than selling it to the highest bidder, we sell it to the best project. And believe me because I've done a lot of juries, the highest bidder is generally the worst project. It has begun with a competition called Reinventing Paris, launched in 2014 and it's now being extended to all our public sites. The idea of this competition was to bring the best teams of architects, innovators, researchers to Paris by giving them the opportunity of building differently and better. We choose 23 sites all around Paris, very different ones from all dimensions in the centre of Paris to Westland along the ring road. We wanted to show that innovation was possible everywhere from empty sites to existing buildings. The idea is to systematically organise competition when a public land is sold. We ask for a complete team with a mixed project interesting users for the area, social housing, new services. It has changed the way developers approach urban projects in Paris. I will give you two examples. The first one is the project called Thousand Trees, Milard. It's both a building and a forest, a new link between Paris and the suburb over the ring road. We have chosen this project while another project was proposing 30 million euros more. The building permit has been delivered and the project will be realised by 2023. A second example, very different, is the railway farm. A project carried out by a collective mixing neighbours and NGOs. This project is about a farm inside the city and housing units for people who will work inside. It is a very social and ecological project. For this reason, we have accepted to rent this space for almost nothing to the collective of association NGO. This type of process can be done everywhere. With the C40, we have launched a big tender called Reinventing Cities, a global competition based on the same rule. Quality rather than price only, teams are competing on all continents to create carbon-neutral projects. And finally, commands, creating commands for all. How we resolve those social and urban problems is not only about our regulation or about how we build, but also about public space. Designing public spaces where everybody feels welcome makes a big difference. In Paris, we ensure that no space gets appropriated by a certain type of class, gender or mobility. This is why we transformed the river banks which were dedicated to cars into a promenade where everybody feels welcome from the Parisian to the suburban people. Almost all activities there are free or low price. And you can see how the difference is spectacular. It's exactly the same place before and after. And on this project, we have decided to have flexible installation that enable to changes use frequently. It is also a post-carbon approach to public space. No heavy installation, reversibility, and frugality. We ensure that very different users find their space there, from skateboarding to jogging, from simply enjoying the sand river to having a picnic with the family. I think that the mix of coercive and incentive solutions is essential for any city and that we must overcome our classical categories. Private projects can generate commons, and the public space is not commons per se. It has to be designed as such. Thank you very much. So, Jean-Louis, while you're walking back, I'm just going to make a couple of comments and maybe a question, because I think they're going to be so different that we might as well put some things on the table. I think, for me, Paris, and just listening to you speak, in some ways, with what's happening today and already it's beginning to surface in conversations in terms of the artifact, whether it's special economic zones or these new towns and gated communities, it makes housemen seem like a complete humanist, in a sense. I mean a deep humanist, because what housemen did there was truly create, in fact, I think the definition of an organic city comes from the metaphors he had to the autonomy of the human body and creating networks between the organs, and that's how the organic comes. And so, networks was very much emphasized in that reconstruction of Paris, which is what's made it sustain in this incredibly robust way. So, there are two questions I have. One is, in this new thinking and identification, for example, of the number of competitions or the projects of the land that comes up, how much of that is being thought today? Because the networks is what made Paris, I think, gives it its life. And the second question I was struck by, the three projects you showed, one went from architecture as spectacle, to the farm, to installation intervention. And I read in that a fascinating temporal scale of material life cycles and all of that architecture. You're investing in something for 100 years. The farm is very reversible. It's a holding strategy. And the installation is completely reversible when the season is over. So is that a conscious kind of strategy in your thinking? Yes. Yeah, you're perfectly right. I think that when you are speaking about sustainability, sometimes you have to be very aware that sustainability means not only reversibility, but temporary urbanism, temporary urban planning. So the traditional vision of urbanism has a complete global vision of the future for 30 years. I think it's more or less has to be questioned. It's not finished, of course. We need to think to a very long term with a long vision. But the question of temporary urbanism, the question of reversibility, the question of emergency architecture are questions which are asked everywhere in the world. For example, we have refugees in Paris. We have migrants. So we need emergency architecture. We have big projects. And sometimes big projects last five or 10 years. So what do we do with this land or these buildings during the period of the conception of the project? This is why we try to organize the temporary occupation of these sites. And for example, for the river Seine, for the banks, it's mandatory. We know that we will have floodings. So we need to have very light and very easy to take off installations. So I think that these projects I've shown, of course, the two extreme winners of Reinventing Paris. One is very beautiful and big architecture, Sufujimoto. And the other one is a very local project. The neighbors are working on it and so on. But I think these two extreme are very representative of what is the new urban planning. And I think this just links beautifully also to a question that was put on the table in the last panel, which was this idea of the incomplete, the city as being incomplete. And I think there's an intersection that we might pick up on. Yeah.