 Kunle, you used, at some point, a quote from the former mayor of Medellin, Fajardo, where you brought together two words which haven't been as present as one might imagine in a conference here at the Biennale, which is beauty and need. You brought those two words together. You also showed us a video which, just the music but also what you see shows an emotion. I mean, you were happy there. I imagine you were tearful when you saw your floating structure sort of appear. And I'd like to ask a little bit more now. What is the role of the architect in terms of synthesis? Maybe we can talk about this together. Where do you create also this passion through the making of space, through the making of architecture? I mean, the beauty and the need, analogy. Alejandro, you gave Kunle the most difficult place to put an object, which is in the arches of one of the greatest architects of the world, Sansovino, I think I'm right, who created a building which is the dock area, which is the white marble thing of which this is effectively an extension, which, like the Arsenaale building, reflects beauty and need. It's a very, very functional space, just as your school. Where do you as an architect, where do you see that synthesis of great bring these two worlds coming together, leaving out all the big global stuff, just go straight to your role as the architect? I mean, I think for me beauty is really about authenticity and about the capacity to orchestrate or synthesize these issues in a way that really comes together harmoniously. And the reference with Sergio Foyardo is very important for our work because we've realized that the inequality in the world is so huge, so diverse, and from the part of the world that we come from, the rich and the poor, they are so far apart. And for me, I just refuse to accept that the poor or the needy do not deserve something beautiful. I mean, I think they deserve, even with our best efforts as architects, where the gap is still so wide in trying to improve the quality of the built environment. So it's a basic requirement that when you're thinking about... That's the aspiration which we all accept. But your skill, those of you, the three of you whose work has been shown, your skill is with modest resources, with some pieces of timber and not much more, you create something which is very beautiful and of course functional. But that wasn't the starting point. No, never starting points. I mean, nothing about the floating school was intended as a beautiful object. The material was found locally. The way it's built is the same way that the community builds their houses, the techniques of building. It's a triangle because it's the most rigid structure and the best structure for flotation and balance. It's triangulated like that because it's a rigid frame. So we didn't start out, we're actually quite surprised it was beautiful. No. I don't believe that for a moment, but anyway, I don't believe that. You are living also in Amsterdam at the moment. Can you imagine that this is also fruitful for cities like in Amsterdam or Europe, etc.? And this is also the question to us all, because these systems that we have are so severe also economically. And that is the question to me, these spontaneous actions. I love them really. But can we help ourselves by wading into another meaning that you post also this urban design is an architecture on a big level. Do you think that these incidents can help us because these are incidents? Yes. Yeah, I mean, for sure, I think, like, I'm not quite sure I understand your question. The question is that our systems that we are dealing with in Europe, for instance, also in your countries are so severe, so dense, that to escape on it by incidents, and I love the incidents, we love it, of course. Oh, do you see a manner to change these systems by using these methods? Yeah, I mean, I think the knowledge or these extreme conditions, as Rahul mentioned, are places that we can learn from. Who has to learn the architect? Because we know it. We can say we have these exceptions. And you also showed us spontaneous and so on. Who has to accept this? I mean, I think all of us. So I think, I mean, my argument was in the same way as I was arguing that you decouple aesthetics from some of these notions. We have to also decouple what is urban design, urban interventions from just the architectural object, which is why then the synthesis as a definition becomes important. So for me, that is urban design. I think what Allah has showed us is urban design. It is when we begin to, as practitioners, whether we come from the discipline of architecture or planning, we begin to create these bridge practices which go across. I mean, I think that is the learning. And that is when we can take these multiple forces and synthesize them. And that involves advocacy. I mean, what you showed us and what Allah has done is advocacy. It is about making those bridges between design and communities, between design and forces, between designs and frugality of resources and all of that. So I think we have to, I think the metaphor for us as practitioners should be the bridging metaphor more than anything else. Otherwise, we make our practices autonomous. And then you get the autonomy of the object and architecture. So I think it's the learning at those levels from these interventions that I think become more critical than the object itself as a design. We're about to wind up. Yeah, I totally agree. I think it's really just the opportunity to think and expand. And for me, the most important thing is action, that we can talk about things, we can theorize things, but we really need to put things into action. And that's the most important step for development. Building on that, the way we act as architects is through design. So I just may want to share now a very specific kind of contribution from our first project in Ikike. Unfortunately, you won't be able to see this, but traditionally in an urbanization, the notion of efficiency for lots subdivision is a rectangle. So a narrow front and some depth for a given amount of square meters. And this is the conventional notion of efficiency. If you're trying to achieve efficiency there, because we need a density to pay for expensive land in the center of the city, instead of expending people to the periphery, we follow that conventional notion of efficiency. We could accommodate 30, 60 families out of the 100 families, which was not only a social problem, but mainly because of the subsidies of the families, if we didn't include the 100 families, we didn't have the money for buy the land. So the specific way was that originally there was a street that was illegally taken by families 30 years ago, and the plot or the block was unfortunately not the regular one for which this notion of efficiency makes sense, but we had to choose a square lot instead of a rectangle. And a square for a developer is a no-go thing. I mean, there's extremely inefficient, too much front for a given amount of pipes and everything. But in the case we had, only the square could rotate whenever you arrived to a corner. And in this plot, we had too many corners. So we had to come up with a kind of inefficient form for the conventional notion of efficiency, but this is the kind of things that we have been exercising in schools, how to cover a surface with a given geometric form. And this kind of knowledge in the end, which is a kind of formal operation, had consequences in the amount of people that you can accommodate and integrate into the city and the network of opportunities of the city. So it was not tested in terms of the square is more stable or it will provide whatever kind of aesthetic consequences, but it was an economical operation that in the end allowed that this family, and I was telling you, a couple of months ago, one of the leaders, this was in 2004, one of the women came to the office and said that a couple of families sold one of the houses. That happened to be in the center of the city. And I asked them for how much. The starting point of this, there. Go on, two seconds. The constraints that we worked with were $7,500 with which we had to buy the land, provide the infrastructure and build the house. Out of this $7,500, $7,200 was subsidy from the state, $300 was family savings. So actually each family paid $300 for that housing unit. So we asked for how much did this family sell the units? $65,000. So that means that with the right design in the right place, if you consider architecture, not an extra cost, but an added value that was able to make an efficient use of the scarce resources, the transfer of public money into a family asset allowed these families to finally choose. These families never, ever in their life chose what to eat, what to wear, not to mention where to leave. Finally, through architecture, and this I would say is the role of the sign, this family now with $65,000 in the pocket can choose as any other citizen in the society what to do with their life. What we've heard now, Alejandro, is the description of your triangle. Design, regulation, and value. We're going to end this here, but it's an extraordinary moment for the urban age, as Philip knows, we've had someone drawing at the table. We've linked the physical to the social, finally. Thank you very much.