 Thank you very much. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It's a pleasure and a honor to speak after Ada Colau and Saskia Sassen to women who share the concern of a democratic access to city spaces and amenities and governance. Reporting from the front from Barcelona, New York, London or Paris leads to the same observations. Our cities attract always more people on a very limited territory. At the same time as local authorities we fight for welcoming more talents, themes and investments including foreign investments, dear Saskia, that are very mobile and could also settle in another metropolis. Attractiveness is sometimes reduced to that only part, having the most creative people and the richest firms. But following this path does not ensure urban quality at all. Being a class of investments does not guarantee clean air, nice public spaces and a good social mix. In Paris we believe that attractiveness is equally about finding social mixing in every area. Bending cars from the city center and letting everybody participate to city governance. Those three ambitions share two common points. First they require strong municipal involvement, second they refer to what we call the commons. When I thought about who owns the city the concept of commons came as evidence. Similarly to natural entities some urban entities are everybody property and for that reason they have to be the main concern of local authorities. They can be formally, publicly or privately owned but this is not the main point. Not only can the local authorities provide commons it must be everybody's objective. In fact the concept as you may know the concept of commons have been initially invented to analyze the management of natural resources. In fact the concept become famous when Garret Ardyn published an article in science in 1968 where he outlined the tragedy of commons meaning the degradation of the environment when many individuals use a scarce resource in commons. Commons are not only about pasture or oceans. The issue of commons have been extended towards the fields of governance, food distribution, public-private relationship. Eleanor Ostrom won a Nobel Prize in economics in showing how commons can be protected by a system of checks and balance. What about cities? Housing, space and clean air are also scarce and hard to divide up among individuals. How can we govern and allocate them? France has a long and particular story with commons beginning by the fact that the French administrative term for city is commune. This story takes an even more strategic turn in Paris when mixed up with the metropolis challenges. Our concern about commons directly shapes our way of governing urban projects, smart city issues and public space. Governing the commons in the 21st century is radically different from the same task in the 20th century. The emergence of collaborative users, the increase of shared housing and working spaces or open data and open government must completely change our approach of the city governance. In Paris, we have major urban challenges that are mostly linked to the frontier of the ring road, a physical and psychological buyer that separate Paris from the suburbs. This image of one of the gates of Paris illustrates how much the frontier can be hard to overcome. The infrastructure is very heavy to transform. Pedestrian and bike links are hard to create. The buildings are very different from one part of the ring road to the other. And a lot of them serve as screens facing the ring road, even reinforcing the barrier. Therefore, even in Paris, if Paris is quite small and the suburbs are closed to the center, the frontier remains very important in the people's minds. Another problem is the financial potential of each city in the greater Paris. The gap between Paris and the closed suburbs is very high. For example, we have in Paris a middle average of 2,000 euros per inhabitant compared to 1,000 euros per inhabitant in the north of Paris. And there is also a disequilibrium between the west and the east. The west part of the greater Paris having a lot of offices and the east part having more housing with some cities being dormitory towns. We therefore try to work with our neighbors to reduce those gaps by promoting innovative programs all around the greater Paris. So the question is how to extend the scope of urban commons. Basically, we believe that no area of Paris should be reserved to a certain part of population, being rich people or people who own a car. Similarly, the urban process is not reserved to elected representatives and real estate developers. It is even more challenging in Paris where the competition for space is hard. We have one of the highest densities in the world and our surface area is only of 100 km2. We cannot build new districts from scratch and every new construction is contested. The result is that we need negotiated urban planning permanently. I will illustrate these words with four examples of urban strategies in Paris. The first one targets private urban projects. I want to insist on the fact that not only public spaces can be common and we have to go over this dichotomy between public and private space. Public ownership does not guarantee anything. Public administrative buildings are often the least open ones while some private projects can create de facto public spaces. In Paris, we are demanding a lot in our relation to real estate developers about the percentage of social housing, the quality of architecture, the surface of green areas. We believe that many private projects can be of general interest. In November 2014, the mayor of Paris launched a competition called Reinventing Paris. The idea was to change our way of transferring municipal land plots to the private sector. Like many cities, we used to sell our land to the highest bidder. This time, we decided to transfer our land to the most innovative project and we choose 23 different sites that were not strategic anymore for municipal ownership. Those 23 sites were a sample of the urban challenges we have in Paris from old private mansions to wasteland along the ring road. By saying that, the most innovative team will gain the right to buy or run those sites, we had a huge impact on the urban ecosystem way bigger than we had expected. The first being innovative means for the developers to team up with startups, artists, final users and to give a more important role to the architect, making him a real conductor. Then, they had to invent programs that would fit the current metropolitan users and challenge from classical real estate projects, hybrid and mutable spaces, programs including urban agriculture, co-working, incubators, etc. They also had to use new materials and to systematize the rules of existing ones. They had to find innovative financial and legal arrangements such as participatory housing, community land trust, etc. This competition was an occasion for a lot of young architects to be revealed since they were already one step ahead in terms of new programs and new mode of co-working. Among the low rates, there are many famous names as young ones who never built in Paris. We got 815 expressions of interest from all over the world. We finally selected our 22 low rates and they are already beginning to implement their projects. We observed some common trends among all the candidate projects. For example, the rise of urban agriculture but above all, what was striking was the emergence of commons in all projects and especially in those who won. The first fact is that collective spaces have prevailed over individual spaces. Being in housing or office projects, most candidates have focused on shared spaces like guest rooms, kitchens, teleworking spaces, etc. Then, what made the difference among the numerous candidates was the capacity to create commons for the rest of the city. Most low rates offer new public spaces or free services and leisure for the neighborhood. In a way, this is what counts most at the end, to show that private projects are feasible with such an opening towards the city. We are sure that this openness will benefit them at the end because they will be really connected to the area. Here are two examples of winning projects that outline these aspects. The first, the more long building, an old prefecture. As you can see on the picture, it's a very austere building that needed to be opened towards the city and to be more welcoming for the citizen. It is situated in the heart of Paris and has a beautiful view on the Seine River but nobody could benefit from it except the city and state employees. The winning project designed by David Schipperfield transforms the building into an attractive and hybrid place with many public spaces. The program mixes up social and private housing, a youth hostel, a food market, a swimming pool, and a lot of urban agriculture. It creates a new public space in the form of a patio that will allow people to cross the building from the Seine River to the Boulevard. It also creates a public space on the top of the building since the roof will be open to everybody and will be magnified by a work of art from Olafur Eliasson. The entire site will be transferred to the developer but is signed a formal agreement to let those spaces open to the public at all times. Another example of winning project is this original building which is actually a bridge over the Ring Road. Like many other cities, our Ring Road creates major urban challenges and remains a psychological frontier between Paris and the suburbs. Therefore we propose to the candidates to occupy the space over the Ring Road so as to create a link between the two cities. The winning project is called Thousand Trees because it installs two forests over the Ring Road as you can see on the picture. This project has been developed by two architects, Soufoujimoto and also it's a mixed program of offices, shops and housing on the top with one public forest on the bottom of the building that will create the urban link. Here also the developer commits itself in making this forest a common. This project is already a symbol for Paris and it brings a common, the forest in a place where only cars were allowed. This competition is for us a change of paradigm or in the way of managing private projects on the other and we have increased the freedom given to developers and architects in the definition of their project. We have a way, more partnership-based approach together. In the contract, the laureates sign for the transfer of land rights. They commit to implement the innovations they have developed in their projects. For example, about construction materials, facilities open to the neighborhood. I want to speak very shortly. I know that I have not a lot of time about inventing urban intervals. This is a way of occupying spaces which are going to be destroyed or transformed. This is the Saint Vincent de Paul Hospital and we have transformed a previous hospital into a temporary village for three years. It is very interesting to see this place because the result is astonishing. It has become a small utopia in the heart of Paris and people come from the entire city to see it. The mix between emergency shelters and activity have given birth to original collaboration about art and craft objects that are used everywhere in the public space of the village. Creating those intervals extends the scope of commons by opening new spaces to people. Another example is what we have done with the river banks. The left bank, it was like this and now it is like this. We are going to do the same thing with the right bank of Paris, which is creating a lot of polemics in Paris now. I will finish with the Plaza de la République because Plaza de la République is interesting in creating undetermined space. This was the Plaza de la République before transformation and now this is it after transformation. It is a huge space and it can be used by people as they want. For example, you can see children playing on the Plaza de la République, but you can also see this great concentration of people after the attacks against Paris. This is an example of a contestation used of the place. I want to say that collaborative methods are full of promises and we are only at the beginning of commoning in the fields of past separatory housing and commuting. We have to remain watchful regarding all appropriation risks because commons will be the major conflict in the future metropolitan world. Our role as metropolitan authorities is to fight against this appropriation through regulation and negotiation and it requires new tools at every moment. In other words, local governments have to see themselves as platforms, managing the citizen expectations and ensuring that both public and private spaces remain urban commons. This is why the concept of open source and interoperability must be extended to urban planning on the front. We can inspire innovative mode of action for extending the scope of commons. Thank you very much.