 Jennifer, thank you so much for that wonderful presentation. Now, we're going to open it up for discussion. We're just going to go around. I think you know everyone who is around this table. They have either chaired or been participated. Jagan Shah has been working on the Smart Cities Initiative in India. Ilaria Boniburini comes from the University of Matastat in South Africa, I believe, and has been working very closely on many of the UN Habitat 3 agenda items. Glad to have you. Sue Parnell was, of course, here in the previous section, and you is one of the most respected researchers on the social dynamics in African cities. So I look forward to hearing your comments. And of course, Ricky Burdette needs no introduction. So Jagan, why don't we start with you? What is your reflection on these presentations, one on the shaping of the city, one on the smartness of land development? I think the fact that we are going to build as many cities in the next 30 years as have been built, one of the statistics I've been picking up as we build up to this point, is this is a huge opportunity of getting it right, doing it in a way that allows us to deal with the challenges of climate, of globalization, of urbanization in a very smart way. How do we make sure that we don't lose this opportunity and screw it up in the way that, and Eco suggested, we may have done in the past? Thank you, Ivo. I want to mention something which actually, strangely enough, hasn't got mentioned enough, I think, is the relationship governments have with their publics. And one of the pillars or cornerstones, whatever you call it, for the smart city mission in India is what we are calling e-governance, really removing intermediation by human beings, partly to take care of issues to do with corruption, widespread corruption, but also to refashion the relationship between the public and the government and create a certain kind of efficiency in that. And I would say that unless we address this problem and we treat government as this sort of thing out there, which means everything, means the same thing to everybody, I don't think we will achieve this new urban agenda. So re-establishing trust between governments and publics, to me, is going to be essential for the future. I think we're also living in a time where the trust has been broken down. So re-establishing is the question. One of my reactions, by the way, to the bottom up top down debate was, depends on which bottom is driving the discussion, if it is the same bottom that is voting in some of our Western countries, I'm not sure I want them to be part of the bottom up approach. I much rather have them from the top down approach. But then the question is, how do we get those top down people from being part of that? So it is, I think it's a critical issue. How do we do this in a democratic way is very much part of it, Sue. Do you want to take a stab at some of the comments? In fact, when you were both talking, Ricky, I was thinking that when you first coined the urban age, that at least part of what you were doing was trying to provoke that we were living in a demographic reality of more than 50% of people living in cities. But what I was so encouraged by in the discussion was to hear an African urban leader articulating clearly the African urban dilemma and response to that in an extraordinarily nuanced kind of way means we've come very, very far. And that happens at scale and that there's an African representation to Habitat 3, which says some of those things and is a leading voice in that process, I think reveals an extraordinary amount about leadership. And similarly, to have the critique of what kind of city that we are looking for being articulated in a very different, very south-south criticism, in a sense, and opportunity and visioning for me tells us that we are in a different kind of urban age. We're now talking about the urban age. We're talking about what's the meaning of the urban in our age. And it's that opportunity to go back to your point about, let's not blow it. I'm anxious that we're going to blow it for some of the reasons that you alluded to. It is likely. It is probable. It is, I hope not certain, that we have institutional capture of Habitat 3 in the way that we perhaps did in the Brexit politics, where the political ambitions of a few, or the institutional dynamics of particular entities, do not enable the kinds of discussions to play out which would see the implementation of the kind of vision that we have here. And so it does seem to me that we need some real caution as we engage in global policymaking because the urban community is not used to it. It's not our conventional terrain. We haven't had a global urban policy agenda. So we don't actually know what we're doing, and we need to step very carefully. And then just one more point associated with that, which is in a sense about this question of what do we want and the ambiguity of it. And for me, it's summed up in what I think is the false consciousness of the discussion. And you probably have some interesting things to say about this, about the discussion about the right to the city. So for those of you who are not involved in this Habitat discussion, basically they're two hot issues. One is what's the role of Habitat, UN Habitat, which is what I've just been alluding to. And the second is this question of, should we have a right to the city? And my concern with that is that it's going to polarize us, and those who don't want it, and those who do want it, are equally ambiguous about what they want. So the right to the city is ill-defined. And if you got it, you wouldn't know what you were getting. And if you didn't get it, you wouldn't know what you were missing. And that is an indictment on the urban academic and intellectual leadership, unlike some of the other proposals which were being put on the table earlier, which I think were quite specific, were quite structural in their understanding, and which I think resonate with real experiences, particularly those of local government. And so the politics of local government would be the one thing that I would really put on the table back as a, what do we have to make sure we don't lose? Ilaria, pick up on that, on the point particularly. It'll come on by itself. It's magical. OK. Yes, the right to the city was heavily discussed, especially with controversial issues when we arrived in New York and at this outcome meeting. And some countries oppose the idea of the right to the city. OK. The right to the city has been around for many years. It started to be around with Enrile Fevre in the 1960s. And they very much connected to a specific period of fight, of both the labor and student fight to have access to the city, to have access to public services, to have access to kindergarten, and also to participate to the politics of the city, so that citizens would have a say in what is going on. So I think that these principles are still very valid today. And this is what the right to the city may bring, the fact that everybody should have access to space, not just the urban. Because also this was another discussion that was going on in some of the policy paper, whether urban is defining formally a certain space or whether urban is a way of going specially on certain phenomenon, which is what we should really do. And the third element that the right to the city brings, even since Enrile Fevre, is diversity and difference. Because I think this is the crucially most important issue. And this is where, I think, with this habitat tree we are losing, meaning that what is an agenda, no? An agenda is it cannot be a series of recommendation. I mean, how many countries, how many cities we have, we cannot give a recipe for everybody. So an agenda is maybe a vision, maybe it's a set of principles. And that is what the right to the city does, perhaps. A set of principles, not a recipe and not policy. Otherwise, we reduce the diversity of this entire world on similarity. And we have seen through those two days what's happened if we follow the same model. And I think this is what we are losing, because I think there is the temptation of giving a series of recommendations instead of opening up for letting possibility to take place. And I think it's because we are scared. I think that's who said before, I think, Hank. No innovation if we trust the policy of today. You need to change the rules. But I think that the rules are the same. That is where I think, and we are stuck. I mean, Eric, you gave a fantastic summary of all the most important principles, fundamental principles of all one planet. But if we go back to the urban planning books, those principles have been there. But then Yoseka Stilo showed us as our many failure, even if those principles have been there for so many years. And the world is changing so much. So I think we should allow for all this diversity and possibility to come in and just impede to impose one model, one grid. I mean, the grid is power. And it's one specific power that comes from a specific part of the world. Do you want to come in on this point? Because I think you said it as strongly as one possibly can. But the power of national government to drive the collective action that is necessary in order to make the right decisions to overcome municipal and private interests was central to your argument. How is that going to be reflected in the discussion in Quito? Because the right of the city is conflicting in some ways with the right of the national government. How do we get that right? I believe that, of course, habitat will not oblige anybody, will not force anybody to do anything. I mean, yes. But it can have, if it is not too vague, if it is not too ethereal, I prefer that habitat runs the risk of disrespecting local idizion crisis or whatever, than to run the risk of being irrelevant. So once this can be useful for many people who will, of course, many of these things were proposed from even from the 76th habitat. So I don't care if it's national government or if it's some regional government. But what is clear is, first, that we should know what we would want. And second, we need the tools to achieve this. And clearly, what I say, private property does not work in the case of land around growing cities. Why? Because the market wars that when the prices go up, supply increases, and then prices go back down. This is what happens with tomatoes. But in the case of land around growing cities, you can increase the price all you want. And the supply of land that is accessible to transport, to education, to jobs does not increase. So clearly, the market does not work there. So there must be some kind of intervention. And it cannot be private. And I think municipal governments, local municipal governments with different agendas. For example, for a municipal government next to a large city, it may be very wise, for example, it happens in Bogota, to have high income gated communities. Because they pay a lot of taxes. They don't use the health system. They don't use the education system. They don't even need sewage system because they have their own. But in the regional perspective, it's completely wrong. So I do believe that we need some kind of, not necessarily national, but we need some kind of state authority that will be able to really use land to do the right place. In Bogota, just one in two seconds, I finish this. We have everything is wrong. Half the city grew up illegally because of private property of land. It grew in the wrong places without enough roads, without enough parks, without places for schools, everything. And this is what I see that is happening everywhere. I've been intrigued, in a way, by after two days, the conversation we're having now. Because if I hear your two presentations, you run cities. What you talk about is incredibly spatial. I mean, Enrique, you're a sort of spatial nutcase. Where everything about the city comes around getting the infrastructure right. And that's not just roads and cycleways, but everything else that comes in, the physical location of schools. And that, somehow, is a prerequisite of a form of equity in your mind. Jennifer, you also, in the end, if you look at your slides, and even when you talk about waste, when you talk about education, these are all very physical things, in effect. They require someone making a decision about where something goes, let alone who pays for it, but where it goes. And if I hear your three comments, they're actually very unspatial. So your discussion about the rights of the city is not really. Jagan's point about relationship to central government, yes, it's institutional. So my reaction to influencing Jean-Claude's and colleagues is what can we do in terms of actually the language of this document, which will come out, which doesn't force these worlds and keep them apart. Why do I say that? Because the tendency will be always, and of course, Ron Cross knows this perfectly well, that only road people will read the transport chapter. Only, you know, civic engagement people will read the chapter on rights of the city. And in a way, you duplicate the silos that exist out there in the professions and everything else. And the great risk then, I think, and I'm interested to hear from you, is that you get technical solutions, just technical solutions to actually fundamentally non-technical, social, cultural, ethical questions. And I would push this document to actually start a slightly different language. I've seen some of the zero draft, which is out there. And I'm not sure we've done very much now. It's not up to us. But perhaps as a sideline partner of Habitat III and the discussions we have with Ron Cross and his colleagues, maybe actually doing something about that language so you mix up these discussions that you've just said, well, I mean rights to the city of Spatial. If I were to play devil's advocate, I'd say, actually, I haven't heard that. But what does that actually mean? Jean-Louis Misica was very, very clear that for him in Paris and for Hidalgo, there are certain very, very spatial things which will ensure a degree of equity that at the moment the city doesn't have. So I'm not being critical of you. I'm just saying that I think there's a tendency to inhabit our own linguistic spaces. And I'm not being generic here, I'm sorry, because this then gets turned into policy. I'm just going to jump in there actually. Because although I am an interloper, I do do my homework. And so I have read the zero draft of Urban III and the thing that struck me, having read an awful lot of documents around international regulation at different levels, et cetera, is that it just paints a utopia. What you have in that document is a pile of conflict and contestation. And we can hear that already around the table, contestation between the market, between government, contestation between rights, contestation, the notion that the bottom is a homogeneous hole that's going to see the same way. And we know that in other spaces that we have in our society, the way we want to govern ourselves, we have to allow an appropriate balance between disparate variety, contestation, whilst enabling some kind of central actor to resolve collective action problems, coordination problems. So my response looking at the document of Urban of the zero draft is, you know, it sounds great, it solves nothing. But that's my slightly pessimistic look on the outside. Jennifer, I don't know if you want to come in on this, but this is how you've managed to gain at the success that you have. And because you did talk about Urban age three, Urban three is providing some solutions here. And I was just wondering where you saw hope. One of the facts that we have to accept is that, yes, we can have the documents signed at the end of these big meetings. But what really matters is the implementation in the different countries. And in this case, the urban centers. And sometimes I wonder whether it would be more practical to have different treatments of different problems at different levels. Because what one country may be able to do, another country may not be able to do because of the special circumstances of these different countries. And perhaps have a more, therefore, focused look at what is actually being done as follow-up activities, depending on the different gradings of the different countries. I don't know because practically speaking, if you look at these big documents and look at all the text and all the solutions, it looks like utopia, as you say. And it doesn't quite address my specific challenges. My specific challenges, for example, with land, the land holding. How do I get around it in order to go to the next step of actually planning? Private land in the cities doesn't work for development and expansion. But yes, but I have private land in the city. So what do I do to get to a level where I can actually implement some of these solutions that are being given? Can it start by addressing these peculiar problems, perhaps, and coming up with solutions or suggestions for them? And then building on that to get solutions that work. I want to speak upon the question of language and use some of the language of the conference and to try and relate it back to where it does and where it doesn't appear in the New Urban Agenda and specifically to the language of space in the way that we've spoken about. It seems to me that the first difficulty of inserting space, the New Urban Agenda is relatively strong on institutions. It's not as strong on space. And part of the reason for that is, is that it uses scale in three different ways. It talks about the city and how the city has to change. It talks about the city system, territorial development, which is a national, typically national could be regional concept. And it talks about the urban planet, in other words, how all cities together and how you intervene in space in those different scales is very, very different. And I think our discussion today was really interesting. When we talked about the bottom up and the big projects and how that scale a question, and I think that trying to kind of capture that and help people to be clearer about that would be really good. Just quickly on that, I mean, I think the difficulty for this community here is that actually design is a language that needs institutions. And the, so Ricky's kind of, I don't know if you can see him on the screen, he can't, he's got a little quizzical thing on his nose. And sort of what do you mean? And what I mean by that is, is that to change space in the way that Jennifer was talking about, the document is very clear that you need to change financial systems. It is also very clear that you have to change planning. What it doesn't do is it doesn't talk about design. And I think one of the reasons for that is because the notion of design, the language of design is a very Western concept. It's a very elite concept. And as insofar as it has been articulated in an urban concept, it doesn't have traction in Africa and large parts of Asia certainly. So I think that's some of why we've got a dissonance and we have to find ways to rectify that. Otherwise we're gonna leave it out and then it can be a problem. I think that there are two articulations of something which is very fundamental, which needs to be really on the table at Habitat 3. What John Kloss keeps saying about the fact that the city is a means to an end. Ed Glazer put it very well. There's no pathway from poverty to prosperity which doesn't pass through city streets. I love that articulation of it. But can we recognize the fact that cities are pathways in some sense and not destinations anymore? We spent about 100 years making cities which are destinations. And I mean destinations in a sort of a fixed sense that your options close once you reach the city. But what is astounding to me is that we're not able to arrive on at some key sort of non-negotiables. It's interesting and we experienced this in India a lot. SDG goal 11 is the urban goal. But SDG 1 is remove poverty in all its forms. And goal 11 surely is about one. But we don't address one. And why can't we do that? Why can't we simply say that removing poverty in the 21st century has got to be an achievable goal for the international community which is debating Habitat at Habitat 3. Why can't we provide housing for everybody? If you do the math it is not prohibitively expensive to do so. But we don't. Why can't we recognize that everything that governments need to do, most governments will admit that they can't do themselves. So they need the private sector. So public-private partnership is clearly a necessary part of our ingredient of this new recipe. And what we also discussed in the discussion earlier today, participation. I mean clearly the citizens do know about some things better than governments do. They lived experience their daily life, the minutiae of life and maybe the design or planning of that needs to be more participative and why can't we just agree upon that? And this is the baffling part of this international discourse. I just wanted to put that on the table. I'm both an architect and an urban policy expert. So the issues of language is definitely a problem. I agree with both of you. But there is an element which is not conceivable and that design is about, you don't design abstract. You don't design without specific content is mine. Otherwise you get it wrong. So how you can come up with a special recipe that fit the entire world when the principle of design is that the first rule is to get really your context right and known up to the point. I mean to the detail which is the architect that design without going on site. I mean if one of my students comes and gave me a design and he's not been on site, it just gets it wrong. So those two elements are not conceivable. So what shall we do with this urban agenda? I don't think that these urban agenda is utopian. I wish I was utopian, at least it was an utopia for the future because one of the element that we have been discussing today is that inequity. Does really this urban agenda address the issue of equity, of a special justice? No, because there are discussion about even putting the right to the city. The right to the city doesn't have a special prescription. And I hope that it doesn't have a special prescription. Okay? But has a special, but has a special impact. And, okay, this is my view that is not especially prescriptive and it shouldn't be. But when I say the right to the city and you have the right to access and the right to occupy space, one translation, one special translation is that we should stop eviction. We should stop expulsion. This is one of the biggest problem in our world and this urban agenda doesn't say it specifically. It doesn't do, not because we are not capable of thinking. It doesn't really explicitly say we should stop all eviction, we should stop expulsion. Why? Because not all countries agree on it. This is, I mean, we have to be very clear about this and even about embracing differences. We have to be clear that yes, we say it in theory, but then there is often the same model of development on the table. There are even the same type of lines through across all the projects that we have seen. Even today we talk about the grid. The grid is a model how we can get over it if we don't really think differently. And I think it's very difficult to do it. Enrique, did you want to come in or Ricky? I do believe that the right to the city is totally special. I don't know if I understand the issue, but clearly you need to find a place for the poor to live in a good place with great design. I mean, you may change the design, but you clearly need to know parks. You need big pedestrian spaces. You need a priority to public transport. I mean, I think almost design begins, design of the space begins with this principle, which seems very simple. This is what I mentioned. If all citizens are equal, then a road space, which is the most crucial space in a city has to be distributed democratically. It means a pedestrian, somebody who walks at the right to the same amount of road space as somebody in a Rolls Royce. Or this is what justifies having a, if a bus with 100 passengers has a right to 100 times more road space than a car with one. And I believe, for example, again, I come back to the most obvious space is land. For example, let's assume government on the land around growing cities for a second. Actually, in the 60s we did a lot of rural land reform. The governments would come and buy the big farms, use eminent domain, take the farms away from the big landowners and make little plots for the smaller owners. But I think urban land reform is much more important than rural land reform because that's where the people will live. So if government, we created an institution, since we talked about the institution, when I was mayor last time, which would buy voluntarily or forcibly land around the city at rural prices, rural land. And then the value increase through changing use and organization would be accrued to government, not to some private developer. In most developing countries, the people who become richest, especially in incomes around $2,000 or $1,000, is through land speculation. So if government knows the land, you can do an amazing city. Regardless of anything else, because I mean you can discuss of how the park is done or how the sidewalk is done or how the building is done but you will have a city that is in the right location with space for schools, with great sidewalks, with good public transport. But the whole issue is land. On the other hand, if you do not have the land, it's a total mess. The city grows in the wrong places. It's extremely costly, environmentally a mess. There is not enough roads. For example, on one last thing, why is the physical so important? Because other things can be solved later. Let's assume somebody does not do enough nurseries. Of course we should do them, but let's assume they can do them later. But if they don't save land for a park, 10 hectares for a park, it's impossible 50 years later to demolish 10 hectares of a city to create the park. So one of the things that makes different the physical in cities that are being created is that almost all other problems can be solved later. You can do the hospitals later, the nurseries later. You should. I'm not advocating that they should be done later. But if the city is not planned from the start, well, it's almost impossible to correct it afterwards. One issue is the new build. And the other issue is how you retrofit what is there. Ilaria, I think there's a genuine, there's not a misunderstanding. There's what is design question, which we're saying not dislike, what the rights for whom and all that. But when I think, and I think Enrique has just said it and Jennifer implies it in her description, that the rights of the city has a spatial dimension, is very different from saying design a piece of city and you've got to do that with a context. We've heard for the last two days, and this is where I will defend every single architect who's come here, they wouldn't be in this room, they wouldn't be in this binari, if they weren't a recognition that there's a relationship between those two, which 95% of my profession, architects, your half profession, so to speak, actually doesn't recognize and couldn't give a damn about. And unfortunately, that's the real sort of world. I think what we heard in these days was very much a more sophisticated way of trying to deal with adaptability and completeness, openness, right? And I think that is the new language which I don't see and don't hear in that document. That would be a bloody good idea and it would help both of us, I think if we actually had that. So in that sense, I don't think we should revert back into positions where there's the socially minded architects and the rest, because I think that's actually unhelpful. Let me just give one example from our city, Julia, which we know, in terms of how do you deal with these issues of social inequality in a spatial way? London has a profound East-West division in terms of life chances. Basically, eight years difference, seven years difference from West London to East London. Every city, your cities, Paris, we heard even more dramatically 11 years difference from one side of the street to another. We have used, we Londoners, partly through the mayoral and the power of the mayor, and Andy Altman was here before through his running of the Olympics project in Tessa Jowell. We've used that spatial investment to try and literally rebalance life chances between East and West London. The result of five years investment of better transport, better public space, better schools, et cetera, et cetera, has meant that some of these social parameters have changed already pretty dramatically. If there wasn't a spatial vision to this, you wouldn't have solved that problem. That's what I'm talking about. I guess I shouldn't call it design. I should talk about the physicality. Specifically of one city, you're talking, yes, but exactly, you're talking about a one city. You're not making a recipe for all the city. This is the contradiction. I'm not, I agree with you what I think is not advisable even, is to give spatial indication at universal level because spatial characteristics are connected to a very specific social, economic, and political condition because every line, and do you know, every line that you draw on a territory is also an expression of power. It's not neutral. So exactly, but how you can draw in abstract, thinking that this drawing is gonna fit Kampala and is gonna fit London. We're going to, I'm going to open it up to the floor now. We've had, you've been very patient listening to the debate that's going on here, but I think it's quite clear. As ever, how you deal with different levels, different levels of governance, the achievement, the expression of universal goals which we know then have to be locally implemented, which have to suit particular local contexts and we may not always be in a position that we want to be. The classic, well I wouldn't start from here when you ask for directions. So we know we have those different contexts and we know we've been talking about the relationship between scale and space and the different agents and modalities of intervention which might be necessary at different levels of scale and space. So now I just want to open it up to the floor for reflections on how we manage these, these different contrasts between different levels, between different contestations that we have and the relative role of different, of the state and of the many, many locals in resolving these quite wicked problems. I think we have some roving mics wandering around. So if you just put up your hand and wave because the lights are right in my eye. So there's a lady right in the front with the glasses. Sorry, oh no, no, she was first. Sorry, out of shot. Okay. Hello? Yes, listening. So Anaklaoja Huzba, city's alliance. I just want to make a quick reflection about the notes from the mayor of Pena Loza and Ilaria's comments. Just for reflection. He mentioned that we in Latin America made several mistakes. So we had a mix of top-down policies, of non-democratic decisions, of the absence of the right to the city for several years. So people would come to our cities and they wouldn't have houses, they wouldn't have access to jobs, they wouldn't have access to opportunities, no? So it was the complete absence of the right to the city. We did everything wrong. So we ended up with crowded cities, overcrowded cities, very unequal cities, very segregated cities, very polluted cities, and very violent cities. We are paying a very high price for not providing for many, many years, at least 20 to 25 years during the period of our urbanization, the right to the city. It's ironically that the Latin American countries are coming together around this concept so strongly. So at the regional conference in Toluca, the right to the city was on the top of the agenda. I just came from the meeting in Asuncion where the housing and urban ministries from Latin America met. They came out with the declaration of Asuncion where the central point is the right to the city. So I'm just showing up to you for reflection. Why this continent that made so many things wrong is claiming altogether for the right to the city? Please think about it. Thank you. Thank you. So I think I'll take another couple of comments and then come back to the panel. Lady in the middle there. My name is Nina Ilieva and I'm an architect and urban planner. First I wanna thank everybody for the discussion and for the great conference. I would like to make some suggestions and questions. My first suggestions is maybe when we are talking about bottom up and top down approaches, we have to think about refugees and people who also and immigrants who also can join the table because we are talking about top down and bottom up. Is there any immigrants or refugees here? Is there any immigrants or refugees here? No, okay. I'm not, yes, but I'm talking about the one who is living in these neighborhoods. So we don't have. So I would have my story. I'm an immigrant. I haven't been living in the exact neighborhoods you are showing. I was looking of not to live in these kind of neighborhoods but I've been living as an immigrant both in Europe and in the United States. And I'm happy right now to have about European and American citizenship. So I wanna tell you something about my experience. I'm originally from Bulgaria. When I was an immigrant in Europe was long time ago. I'm sorry, I'm a little bit nervous. But when I went there and I was in Austria, the people were asking me when you were going back home. And they're asking me if I'm not a refugee. So I just accepted that's very normal. Then my family immigrated to the States. I went to the States and I accepted, I was expecting the same attitude. But when I went to the States, the people were telling welcome. So I was really surprised from these attitudes from the United States. And I'm happy right now to say that I'm American and Bulgarian. So I think we have to catch up Europeans. We have to catch up, yes, we join European Union, we're happy. We have to catch up with the diversity and with the openness which United States have. That's from the point of immigrants. That's from my personal experience. My second, I just have only one more suggestion and I'm finishing. My second thing, when I went back to Bulgaria, I decided that I have to do something because if you want to change, you want to make a change in the world, you have to be the change you want to see in the world. So I went back and I saw that we are really very much ethnic, we have a really very bad prejudice against Romani people and we had in Bulgaria. So I started working on that. But I haven't seen anybody touching this really bad topic in Europe. There are more than 11 million Romani gypsist people living really poor neighborhoods in Europe, even in Rome, everywhere. Nobody's talking about that. So I'm just like, I talked to Juan Carlos and maybe we can talk to the director of the Venice Biennale about that. I don't know why we haven't raised this issue and this topic, but I would be really happy if you're trying to get there to do something and to make the best of the world a better place. Thank you. Okay, I've got a couple of questions. If I could just ask people to be quite brief and to actually pose a question, that would be most helpful, thank you. So to write, so I'm looking at a lady in a white shirt and a lady in a red, in a blue jacket, at the top, top of the stairs, top of the stairs. Okay, well, you come next. Following and engaging in this urban discourse for more than 30 years now, I think it is necessary to come back from time to time to the physical. And I see this reluctance in the academic world and in urban politics to talk about physical solutions. And the reason why people like Jaime Lerner and Enrique Penalosa are so influential and they are guiding the way is because they produce physical examples, models. And in the end, we will have to solve problems on the ground with typological structural proposals. And I think Habidats Free should also be an occasion to talk about physical models which can guide people, inspire people all over the world and draw their own conclusion and deduct their own local solutions from it. Question there about the role of technical, structural and physical models. So just the two questions at the top there and then I'll come back to the panel and then I am going to take some questions from this bank here in the next round. Thank you. Back to you, Tote, from Make Architects in London. I'd quite interested to hear from Enrique Penalosa here. I was wondering what your take was on informality or what's been termed as the hostile economy of slums because I don't think it's really been mentioned much today. And I've read quite a lot about it and I think people need it and it seems quite a lot from the discussions that it seems people, it's been quite dismissed. So I'd be quite interested to hear your views. Middle. I'm Jane D'Amosto, I live here in Venice and it's kind of a message from a shrinking city to all these growing cities that are represented in the room and I've had a lot of talking about spaces and institutions and ownership and I've got the impression that public ownership is a kind of panacea but what I want to emphasise speaking from my own personal example, personal experience of living here and seeing what's going on is that critical to public ownership is participation. You can't have one without the other and here we are in the Addisonale which represents almost a fifth of the city including the water which for Venice is a very important part of our city. A third of it is occupied by the navy. A third of it is the Biennale here we are here in these spaces that are used for about six months of each year for display-based cultural production. The Venice municipality also owns this and owns all that huge area on the other side of the water from where we are here and almost nothing is happening there and it's a great pity and if anybody has anything to add to help us improve our techniques of engagement and participation to make sure that the city can grow there because it's a very important part of the city since everywhere else is squeezed and suffocated by mass tourism. So thank you, so we've got a range of questions there in relation to the role of technology in structural physical models, the issues about participation, obviously come up with particular issues on slums and the issue of public private ownership. Enrique, you had a specific question to you, do you want to address that and then I'll throw it open to the rest of the panel. Hello, okay. Well, slums prove as Slomo Angel said here that if people have access to the land, they can solve their housing problem. So the land again is the issue. The problem is that often they are in the wrong places and again because government does not own the land but some illegal developer so there is not enough space for roads, for sidewalks, for parks. But I think slums have wonderful characteristics. I think many slums are better than what the architects do with all respect and that urbanists do formal architects. We have architects are in their conservation boards in cities and they want to preserve everything. We have more preserved houses in Bogotá than in Paris perhaps because their fathers or their grandfathers or their university professors were the ones who designed that. They think this house should be preserved not for 30 years, not for 300, not for 3000, but for ever as a treasure of monument to their greatness and genius. I believe that we should preserve some slums because they are really not really slums. They are very creative. I love in Bogotá at least as they have been very free to develop actually they live enough road space to move. I mean not enough but they live road space. They have terraces, they keep plants in the terrace and so they have in the mountains wrong place to be but they have a beautiful view. They can talk to the neighbor in the house across the street from their own window. So I think they have wonderful characteristics and what we have done is to legalize them, to improve them, to provide them fantastic schools, better school facilities than the best private schools for the upper income people, some fantastic libraries. Here I am very happy they mentioned the Medellin libraries several times, we did some better ones before those in the slums so and that this is what has to be done, infrastructure to improve the slums, libraries such as the ones in Medellin, parks, public transport and legalize them and I think we can learn a lot from slums. Any question that came up just I think we would like to respond to you. I wanted to mention the slums and hearing what Enrico says about slums in Bogota I think I would have a very different position in the slums that we have in Africa and so the challenge is always how do we treat these slums particularly sitting on problems of land ownership and one of the reasons the slums develop say in Uganda is because the land is privately held and the owners allow these people to build as they want and you cannot as government just evict them without adequate compensation but they are a big problem, the sanitation, the facilities they do not build leaving enough space for roads or any form of infrastructure so I think they are the worst form of slums that you could have and preserving them would just be preserving a problem so we have to deal, find ways of dealing with them and redeveloping them to provide decent housing for our people unlike perhaps what other jurisdictions have to do. 30 second comments, 30 second last comments on slums. First, since we have slums in every developing country sitting the planet including there were slums in London or Paris at that time is clearly not because governments are stupid or corrupt because it's impossible that every major in the world is stupid or corrupt, it's because the system doesn't work the private property of land does not work and so and second in some countries these slums are better such as in Bogota and these are the ones we saw in Mexico because they have been tolerated so basically they are almost legal so they can't afford to leave streets and all of these if they are repressed by government they tend to make a whole mess where there is no public space at all or anything. I just need to take some more questions and I know we need to finish certainly by six so I've got two more questions over here so gentlemen in the back row with the glasses thank you and then gentlemen there with the beard on the end and then okay a really quick one from you right next to me, I missed anybody. Okay again just remember if you could be quite brief and pose a question. Okay if you could be quite brief when your question. Yes, my name is Alexander Stolle I'm from School of Architecture in Stockholm. We have a wonderful paradox here we're in car free Venice talking about how the last century of the auto centric urban development and all of the things that has been shaped in terms of social segregation and land consumption of this development. My question is how do you think that the new technologies of self-driving cars will shape the future of future cities and urbanism because that's kind of a bottom up top down problem. I'm a bit surprised that the discussion today has not referred sufficiently to resource depletion and climate change. Alejandro did refer to this as a major challenge if we succeed in our material objectives but I am surprised that in this discussion we seem to not really connecting to the huge body of science in the world that I circulate in that really does suggest that the kind of optimistic modernity that Ed Glazer was talking about is just simply not gonna happen. It's bad economics to assume that this reality does not exist. So it is a opportunity for redefining what is possible and so when we talk globally about urban expansion and we see a picture of empty land there's food growing there. One of the biggest fundamental paradoxes in the world today is the necessity for additional land and the fact that food growth is now dropped for the first time below population growth and we have a major, major long-term clash between the resources required for food production and the resources required for urban expansion. We can't just ignore that. If you look at the African context the installed electrical generation capacity in Africa is equal to what exists in France. If Africa energizes using fossil fuels none of the Paris agreements will be reached. So you have to completely redefine what energy means in the African context. If you want 800 million people to be living in cities who are not dependent on fossil fuels it's just a brutal factual reality it means reinventing grids, energy, urban efficiency, buildings, densities everything follows from that. Okay, thank you. It's an opportunity, I don't believe in the world of constraints and sustainability I believe in the world of opportunity that it creates but we have to invoke it. Otherwise it's bad economics. Hi, I have a quick question. I'm an architect and practice as an urbanist in Asia which didn't come out so much in the discussion yet I feel and I work on projects of for example 30 square kilometers in Vietnam. Our client is a developer. Their clients are of course new home owners or so they hope. Those home owners want to have a house with a lawn so they want low density housing. My question is who takes the responsibility? We cannot take the responsibility because we are paid eventually by the developer. Of course we do our best to propose the best city we can but we are in a certain position. The new people who are going to live in those houses with their lawns are not going to take the responsibility. The developer definitely is not going to take the responsibility. The government in Vietnam is building the roads and maybe should take the responsibility but they don't. So who is going to take the responsibility for the city? Okay, thank you. So three excellent, very different questions there. I'm going to open it up to the panel and ask you just to pick on any one of those that you would, you want to hit on. To reply to one that seemed to be referring to me. First, we cannot have this emotional view that cities cannot grow. Bogota for example, as I mentioned has one of the highest densities in the planet. Bogota has four times more inhabitants per hectare than London, has three times more inhabitants per hectare than Sao Paulo and we have now 2.6 million homes and we need to build 2.7 million more homes over the next 40 years. In Asia and Africa, the growth is going to be much more. So clearly we cannot feed all the growth of cities inside the existing cities. Of course, if some of this can be done, wonderful but cities need to grow but we need to grow precisely so as to have compact cities that move by public transit. So I do think that we address the global warming issue because precisely to have, I think all through the two days, global warming has been addressed because the best way to counter a global warming is to have compact cities that move by public transport and by bicycle and the way to achieve that is to plan those cities and to intervene and not to allow just the free market to spread out in low density, car dependent gated communities. Mark, this is slightly odd because I'm talking to you and you're behind me. But perhaps I was indirect and let me be overt in the comments that I was making which I think address your concern about resource constraints and about what it means to live on an urban planet and what that means in the Habitat 3 agenda as it is currently articulated. And the concern for me is that what the new urban agenda does at the moment is that it tries to spell out how to make cities work better. I think that's a good thing. I think it's actually quite a radical agenda that's in there, it may not be complete, it may lack a language of design, it may not be sufficiently spatial but it really does get to some of the concerns which have been on the table. And that's a prerequisite for doing the much bigger transformative change. What I also alluded to though was that I think we are being hijacked by institutional politics within the UN and that relates exactly to the question that you are talking about and it relates to the question of whether UN Habitat is in a position to take on the climate agenda, to take on the send our risk agenda, to take on your question about refugees and migration, the humanitarian agenda, all of which have urban dimensions. And you were talking about how every SDG has an urban application. And so it does seem to me that what we need to be careful of is that we don't overburden this agenda and this expectation of what Habitat 3 can achieve. However, what we absolutely need to do is to leave an escape clause, a mechanism to ensure that we are able to pick up the complexity of the urban issues which relate to living on an urban planet in a sustainable way, which I do not will think will be resolved by the time we get out of Quito. I think just to take a couple of points about, I think there is a connection between what Mark is talking about in a way. Mark, a lot of this was articulated very well yesterday and perhaps we need to be more open about it. But everything certainly I've read and heard from my colleagues, Philip Rode, is very involved in one of the policy units for the new urban agenda. There certainly is much more awareness of the environmental issue as linked to many of the other issues, including the spatial, than certainly it might have been 10 years ago. I think one of the critical things is how do you keep people in cities in a livable way, in an equitable way, and retrofitting what is there and improving what is there is just as important as planning new. And I think that is a critical thing to remember and I think the more this document can focus on that. And to take the point about the slums, I think maybe we haven't used that word that much openly. I think there's an embarrassment sometimes to use that word because it sounds so derogatory. But certainly a lot of people in the room have talked about informal development. Everyone who talks about African urbanization is talking about informal development equals slums. And I have to, again, defend many of the architects who spoke today. Julia King spoke about bringing back basic services to slum areas in Indian cities. Joe Noero spoke about providing that most decent unit, which is a home that stays up and that you can add to, of course, developing some of Varavana's ideas. We heard that even assemblage the British team effectively working in a slum in the middle of Liverpool. It's a poor area which has been practically abandoned with some very interesting ideas and et cetera of how to improve that. So in that sense, I think we should be able to stand back and see a synergy of thinking about the notion of whose city is it, the rights of the city and how you can deploy spatial tactics to improve, I guess, the quality and the rights of people in there. In that sense, Mark, perhaps we're not being obvious enough by saying that by reinforcing the quality of the city, intensifying and improving it, you will actually reduce the need to eat up external green space. I agree, though, with Enrique, that there are some points at which, if you have a tripling of the population, you've filled it up, you've got to think of something new. You might as well think of a better one than a bad one. So in that sense, I support that approach. I would like to conclude saying that how we can improve the current draft of the urban agenda because I still think that we are a bit stuck and we need to think out of the box. And so definitely not speaking in term of physical moodle because I think that we are not able to react sufficiently to new challenges and all the problems that are still there in equality and the new one in term of limited resources if we continue to reason in term of model and solution. I think we have been headed the same model down there for over 100 years, the same kind of recipe that had been circulating all the education and planning books for, again, more than 150 years and still our city, they don't look improving. And I think we have limited already too much other realities, other realities to also to display a different way of to be urban, I think, long enough. Thank you. I think I just like to focus, if I had the option, focus the agenda entirely on finding ways to do things, how to, how to should be right on top of the agenda. Clearly all our cities are imperfect. I can't think of any which is heaven. And no government will ever admit failing, but they are willing to take help. And what I'm getting at is that I think we need to move towards what some people call the triple helix but move towards a better way to manage this overall crisis that we have. Clearly partnerships between industry, government, institutions are at least the most promising, not a sure shot, but certainly very promising. And what is good, and I think we should count our blessings, is that overall we don't disagree about the fact that cities need to be inclusive, productive, run through partnerships, that they should save our rights and civil liberties. We don't disagree on that. So that's a good thing, and I think we can build on that. But certainly governments need help. And it's really important for the entire ecosystem to gather around the governments because I don't think we can manage without government either, and really reinforce the capacity we have to deal with what Mark points out is so real. Two degrees rise, we lose the capacity to work. That sounds awful. So clearly we do need to work together. And I think if Habitat 3 can achieve a pathway towards collaboration at that level, we would have done something. What's your... Yes, I'd like to agree with Jagan on the need to help governments initially to even articulate, be able to articulate the challenges, and then also understand the possible solutions and things that we can do to move along the same path. There's no disagreement about where we all need to go, but how do we all come to one position and then begin moving in the same direction, both as the developing countries and then the developed countries, so that we have solutions that can work generally. We may not get it 100% right, but solutions that work for each one of us and taking our governments, taking our social, political issues, taking out the environmental issues that we're meeting every day as we do our work, because we cannot get away from the climate issues as we develop and seeing how we can do it better together. Just to close this off, I thought there's a very... Well, we have to close because we're already 15 minutes past our schedule and Jeanne is going to close this all. Just a final comment. I thought this was a very rich and very good discussion. I thought the last three questions actually put together the problem that we have and part of the solution, the problem of resource constraints that will have to be the basis of how we think about our policy formation, the reality that government needs to provide some guidance so that the responsibility can be taken by all of us and it is by architectural firms and real estate developers and the people who actually benefit from that and that technology may be part of that solution in self-driving cars and thinking about how those three elements come together I think was a nice way to end this. With that, we will stay here. Thanks to all for your comments and Jeanne Close will close us off. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.