 I think what we're going to do is be fairly brief because we don't have an enormous amount of time and I just wanted to make a couple of their reflections I think rather than questions but if you want to come back perhaps then to do that or pick up in response. Hank the thing which you said perhaps most soberingly of all is that the time frame for thinking about projects with that they are big or small is so profoundly short that the time for innovation is now and in that spirit I want us to park the discussion and Jose I think he did it really well of big versus small. My sense is that it's there's space for both it's the question of how they interact. Lots of provocations from very different kinds of projects and what struck me most perhaps is that we have just as we have the money globally we have the design skills and we have the project management skills. What worries me and I want to speak to the silence as I saw in the images is we didn't see a single face we didn't hear anything about where the money actually comes from and how complicated it is to manage and we didn't talk about any big projects that are not run through conventional corporate firms. So we ignored the big slums which are frankly big projects they may not be ones that we lord that we see as successful but to think of somewhere like Kibera as anything other than a big project which has the backing of particular interest groups and functions in particular kinds of ways and has its own sort of design logic even though we may see that it is dysfunctional seems to me to be an error it exists as an entity within the city with its own logic in some way separate from but connected to the city and so I just want to sort of think about that as we go forward. So as we just open this up and perhaps look for a response my question to you is would we not learn more about big projects by being quite self-critical about what the contribution of the big project is to where it started us off from which was to say if we're going to be bold about this if we're gonna claim the city as our future what is it that we can do and how do we do it better and what are the limits of the big project and the top down approach in that regard. Yes well if you ask me where does the money come from and conventional corporate firms I'd like to report from Hamburg where there is a very unique constellation because the land of the harbor is being put in a in a special firm which is a corporation but the firm is 100% in property of the city and consequently the urban design is as you have been seeing divided into a public space system with rather small scale plots and these small scale plots are not they do not for instance give a whole area of a peer out to one developer but the plots the blocks are tendered out piece for piece by competition. Consequently the program the financial offer the diversity in in architecture and the quality is is subject to the judgment of who will get it and the one who get it gets the land and ownership not in lease in full ownership and from this revenue the public space and technical and traffic infrastructure is financed and there's a calculation over 30 years where in the end this has to be break even and they did it they made a mistake once because the center of the area has a big shopping center a hotel with cruise terminal and and so on and they thought they tender it out 300,000 square meters and they tender it out to a consortium of German and Dutch firms and when the crisis in 2008-10 came one of them and bankrupt the Dutch banks were not allowed to put money into it anymore and the developments were stuck but all the other developments they went on so it was a very clear sign how to deal with development and of course as a matter of fact these developers have to be always a robust public space and street framework which allows for adaptiveness and change according to demand. I'm curious picking up on that case and maybe struck by your image Jose which at the end there which had a number of things about you know allowing for mistakes and allowing experimentation failure and and non-professionals I'm very curious you and Hank and then you into this as well I mean I'm struck when we were doing the Olympics and we were thinking about how to diverse you know diversify the economy on the Olympic Park so we did a big trip out to Silicon Valley with ministers from government to talk to you know venture capitalists and see what they said and we sat down with them and they said the first thing they said to us was the problem with the way you're approaching this is you won't invest we only invest in 25-year-olds you won't talk to anyone if they're not over 60 they said you have a cultural problem which is you don't you won't encourage risk you won't encourage failure experimentation a lot of what we heard this morning was about allowing for that how does that fit into these big systems you're talking about Hank you talked about it here right you had to get all the government aligned but allow for experimentation allow for local forces to organize curiously the same thing and you know big infrastructure and the ruthlessness you talked about how does that allow for this and Jose your meeting of the middle I'm very curious because how do these systems and the culture the culture of planning the culture of governance allow for this kind of thing to happen and still address these big challenges with rebuild the design after Hurricane Sandy there's there's two things one there's 60 billion dollars not as a promise as with the Green Climate Fund it's as an empty promise no it's real it comes from the federal budget so we had a room full of New York investors that had a totally different response than your venture capital capitalists investors in Silicon Valley we said why don't we make a match 60 billion of the federal government with a private meet we can find any structure to get up get come to a financial match not not interested come with solid projects with a short time frame and once you get them we might be able to invest so there was no contribution from the private sector second your question on how do you organize experimentation in such a distrusted place is by it we created like a safe place where everybody could step in and organize themselves around that meant that everybody was always at the same table federal government was there as much as communities that took a while of course my team starting on rebuild the design got hate mail from Staten Island saying get out we don't want to see you and don't want to see those designers nor the people from the federal government but we went back and back and back and started to build up this relationship so there was a stubbornness to organize but also the promise of delivery and now that's the challenge for in this case New York City or New York State or New Jersey to actually deliver on that promise New York's doing pretty well but New Jersey is not doing well on that promise what what do we tell one class about what about planning how should he be thinking about planning in your scheme I think he knows it all by the way I think there's a if Sue kind of alluded to the elephant in the room here which is a question of democracy and as I was watching ads diagrams of correlation between a GDP and organization and I know he's not a political scientist but I'm actually wanting to to see the diagram between the correlation between autocratic rules and an organization and most of the projects and this is where the the the democratic deficit in Latin America becomes paradoxical in the context of these heroic projects that I that I showed so some people still have a kind of nostalgia for the Brazilians or if not those Brazilians but at least the level of control on the transformation of the territory so from Humboldt and the law of indies to Lucio Costa or Mario Pani there's still a kind of nostalgia both from the inside of the discipline but also from the politicians side and so that I think there's a democratic deficit which at the same time needs to be imagined be beyond the nemeson for sure there's a piece on the New York Times last week on the academic studies on the correlation between inequality and nemeson in Boulder Colorado and I think it's it's important to lay out that beyond the ballot beyond the picket beyond the protest there can or should be room for different forms of engaging democratic processes the other thing which is is that and it's been alluded over the past 48 hours which is there's a possibility to decouple planning from time something which Raul has insisted with his notion of and for morality and kineticness the the notion of a decoupling planning and participation and knowing when it works well together as the last panel showed and the decoupling it also from scale and scale I meet the amount the resources allocated to a project in 1997 a hundred million dollars were invested in the Guggenheim Bilbao now what they says a kind of benchmark are we better off producing four museums of 25 million or a hundred museums of one million that's I think those are questions that beg tentative answers by the way not a Jubilee line is not going to get built bottom up and or the redevelopment of Singapore answer the democracy urbanization link so there are two things going on one of which is that initial urbanization and some period does typically predict the transition from autocracy to democracy although that can often be very messy messy as we've seen lately in the Arab Spring but but certainly those uprisings began in cities as they have been for hundreds of years where cities facilitate the democratic connection secondly though the countervailing force is that dictatorships have much larger primate cities so when you compare dictatorships with democracies the average size of the largest city in a dictatorship is 40% higher than the average size of the largest city in a democracy in part because people flock around power like ants do around a picnic and in parts because dictators like just build themselves massive points of infrastructure but I want to come back to this thing which I think you know everyone's tried to emphasize that it's not a battle between small and large right it's about both and in so many cases with urban services there are two ways of solving the problem you can have your own pit latrine or you can have a sewer system you can have a septic system in between you can have a jitney right or you can have a large scale you can have a gout rain on the other on the other side you can have a shack built in the back or you can build large-scale public housing projects and it's not that the answer is always one versus the other lots of cases I have sympathy for the idea of upgrading the jitneys slowly in an Istanbul model rather than moving immediately to a large-scale hyper technological answer in the case of sewers in the case of water I think there's more of a case for moving towards a large-scale technological intervention but you in that case you still need to be engaged with the community you still need to be listening which is what's so beautiful about what Hank was talking about so it's it's not one versus the other it's both and it always means that the large-scale interventions need to be informed by the by the people on the ground because it's ultimately for them with that can and I used it with one of the projects which was called the big you which focused on Manhattan solely in regards to sea level rise climate change and anything that came across there was this of course is I'd let's build a wall around it like a Robert Moses would do and then you have you can calculate how much you percent protect and since there's so much as assets at risk you can also you turn it into a relevant one but they came up with a very like not bottom-up but small-scale approach street by street community by community block by block they went around around Manhattan finding solutions that actually would fit and give that added value we talked about so on the lower east side of course with social housing low-income housing solutions for protection of Manhattan came out totally different than in better repark where there's private capital to invest in and you get bigger infrastructure in a different way done so the idea which then you could call the plan or planning was big but the outcome turned out into like a chain of events and the process therefore was critical so you're asked for to does the architect or the designer need one type set of skills no it's a set of experts and expert and non experts to collectively that actually are able to deliver on such an idea I think we're at 410 we went a little bit over so we're going to wrap up this session now I'm sorry we didn't get hold on case we'll give you you have a response before we wrap up I think the example of high speed railway lines for instance is in a democracy is very good because it's going to be there it has to be it has been decided on a higher democratic level is going to be there and then has to be implemented what is extremely lacking in the community of implement of people who implement plans and who work on plans is the knowledge where you have impact and where you don't this is this is a new science in my view that has not been developed very well I think on that note I guess what I'm hearing from folks on to try to summarize this but I mean we have quite a juxtaposition between this morning and this afternoon of trying to deal at different different scales different sense of time but it's not the either or a big versus small a lot is in the very design of both the processes the democratic processes the skill sets that allow us to operate at different levels and create systems that frankly are not closed but open to experimentation and to allowing attention to exist but the same time to try to allow for many many solutions to the complexity of urbanization so I don't think we've resolved that one way or the other but I think we have some insights into how maybe even some of these large scale projects and processes can be structured in ways that are more inclusive.