 Thanks very much, David, for the invitation. And I'm honored that my afternoon date is Professor Addington, so pleasure to be speaking with her following this. And I really enjoyed the morning session very much, so I'm excited on where this might go from here. I'll admit, first, I am certainly not a scientist, and I have great admiration for the science of this mode of thinking, this mode of working. I consider myself very much a kind of speculative realist when it comes to design making, design visioning, and I really appreciated Sheila's comment about the imagination. I use that as part of, I expend a lot of energy on the imagination, as many of my colleagues do as well, maybe too much energy. So I called this talk Energy Publix, Five Points on Energy in Place, and I like the provocation of being in the topic called location. I think a lot about site, in fact, I would say, only discovering this maybe in recent years, I think my greatest interest in architecture is the question of where does the site begin and end? And I think all of my work relates to that question. So I almost start more with a larger scale thinking, and hopefully, if there's enough traction, I get down to a smaller scale application. The work I'm showing today is all unbuilt work. Two or three of the projects are new, and I'm excited that two of the projects that start out as pure speculation have gotten some steam towards reality, and I'm in the midst of that now, and I'll point those out to you, which is very exciting to think that you begin a project not knowing if there is client or if there's agency, but then discovering along the way that it has an audience, and that's an exciting way to begin. Okay, so as I mentioned, I'm interested in this question of site, so I wanted to put forward this term environment, which my studio were about four or five, typically on average, four or five staff, and we think a lot about this with every project is where does the site end and begin, but also this notion of environment, and I really love definitions, sometimes in lectures can be a bit dull and practical, but this is just a really rich reading of this term environment. In particular, I'd like to highlight the third definition, which I think is a wonderful way, a kind of liberating way to think about design and its capacity, is that the definition of environment are literally all of the elements over which a designer has no control, and that affect a systems or its inputs and outputs, and that's both terrifying, but I think also equally incredibly liberating to think that, and I think Nicholas Necroponte and some of his interest about the kind of willingness to let control slip by the wayside I think is an empowering perspective on this idea. Quickly leveraging that into notions of energy, I just wanted to remind you that the idea and notion of energy being public in any way is still quite new. It was in the 1930s where something like the Tennessee Valley Authority and its desire to harness or capture the environment's riches was used and quite a powerful tool even today. I think 2010 TVA's revenue was 11.5 billion. And this is a very successful organization that harnesses many different powers together in one. So this notion of energy being public or what kind of place it has I think is a new idea. So these are the questions I'm asking with this talk that I'm gonna try to keep within my 12 minute timeline is does energy have a place today? And what is the public nature of energy? And as I said, I think more through a kind of speculative realism in our practice, and so I really use design and the capacity of design and the capacity of case studies. So the specificity of a project is very important to me. I'm not very good at making pie charts or graphs or things that are, but I have great respect for them. I'm not good at that. So I'm gonna hopefully present five points towards a new conception of an energy public. And these are my five points. One is a reminder about the campfire and the campsite. Two, I'm gonna ask if you speak energies. Three, I'm requesting that you know your umvelt. Four, I'm inviting you to play the world game. And five, I'm hoping that you will interact with your energy. So let's start with the campfire, what a good place to start. And we can't talk about the campfire without talking about Bannum's introduction of the campfire in the architecture of the well tempered environment. And many of you probably know, Bannum used the campfire as a kind of prod of a conundrum of a dilemma of if a tribal people has a gathering of wood, do they use this wood to burn for heat and warmth, or do they use this wood to construct a shelter in which to maintain warm thunder and that kind of dilemma. Equally the idea that the campfire is literally a thermodynamic machine and that it offers this zone of radiant heat and light. And number two, it's downwind trail of warm air and smoke. So it has a kind of residue with it as well. Equally, Bannum introduced the tent as this primitive hut, simple structure, membrane that deflects wind and excludes rain. So in a way, these two elements are a kind of core or basic instruments of architecture and space making as it relates to energy. So this was a project we did for the Chicago architecture of Biennale last summer looking at a kind of domesticated wilderness. This was a bit of, we were the only Canadians in the Chicago Biennale, so it gave us a chance to kind of play with Canadian identity and Canadian-ness and some of those perceptions, whether they're actual or not. And we noticed that there was an immense amount of energy invested in the innovation of the tent and really again admired that mountain equipment, co-op all of these corporate entities and some really brilliant designs and innovations and materials had really been at the forefront of that. And even gear, the kind of evolution of gear, this is an outdoors person laying out, this is what I'm gonna live off of for a month. This is the idea of the kind of heroic nature of I'm living off of this stuff out in the wild. But then recognizing that things like campgrounds and especially car camping was incredibly underwhelming and incredibly suburban and had no identity to it. So our place of experimentation was the question of, can you make urban or urbanized collective campgrounds and what does collective behavior mean when you're out in the wilderness? Often it means sharing resources and so forth. So we made two things. We made a series of these brochures that you would normally find when you enter, let's say a provincial park in Canada or a state park in the US, you would arrive and you'd get one of these news prints that tells you what to do with your waste, what kind of firewood you can or can't use, where the showers are, that sort of thing. And then we made a singular architectural model that had a gradient of landscapes across it from a plains to a wetland, to a kind of Canadian shield landscape, to a more forested landscape and projected these five scenarios of collective camping. And tried to be kind of democratic about the representation of these, but they were always about forms of collective occupation in the landscape, how to deal with literally the fire, the campfire, how to deal with wastewater in this particular scheme, which was called closed loop, which had to do with a kind of zero footprint or low footprint camping. And this was the how-to manual, how to occupy the site, where does your water go. And all of these sites were meant to come pre-equipped with tents. So tents were integrated into the campsite as a kind of tool. So this is the closed loop model in the foreground, some representations of that in a wetland. And we saw this one really as hovering at a hinge between water and land. And so we did this five times. And each time we were asking, where does the campfire go? Where does the stored wood go? What do people do with their waste? How do they gather their water? And what does privacy mean in this? And maybe not always energy related questions, but questions about density and collectivity in the wild. And this project, through a kind of CBC radio broadcast, actually had picked up some interest from Parks Canada. So we're actually now working with their strategic visioning department, which I didn't even know they had, in possibly piloting a campsite. So this is a sort of exciting byproduct of a project that is cooked up internally. My second question to you is, would you like to speak energies? And energies is a language, a kind of electrical language developed by Howard Odom, who is an ecologist, an American ecologist. And this is a kind of code that Odom and his collaborators would use to understand a contained ecosystem. So you get, these are the kind of languages like switches and so forth of, what is the source of energy? What is, where is energy stored? Where is an interaction point between energy? What's a self-limiter? And then I think even energy loss is represented. And so he would do these kind of electrical diagram, wonderful electrical diagrams of ecosystems. So this, for example, is, I think it was shrimp, yeah, shrimp mariculture of coastal Ecuador. So this black line that you see around the edge here is the pond proper. But around it you have all these wonderful other things that are very abstract to most ecologists like markets and capital and labor, but then other things that are difficult to estimate or maybe are unpredictable like rain and environmental factors that are external to that bubble. And I think this is a fascinating and challenging way to think, but I think it's, again, a very empowering way to understand sight in architecture, to read it not just as, we like to think of architecture as being this box only, but I like to think that there are possibilities and design interventions in here that can be a bit more entrepreneurial, maybe. I'm going to breeze through this project. It's an older project, but I think it fits this idea of energies which looks at an over-salinated body of water in California called the Salton Sea. It has a lot of political complications as it comes by the edge border of Mexico. The Colorado River is a heavily infrastructurally modified body of water. It's diverted into the Imperial Valley, which is where New Yorkers are eating their, where they get their salad from when they're eating salad in winter. You know, it's the kind of bread basket of a lot of America, but you can see the algae bloom in this over-salinated body of water and it previously was a Riviera, so it had this wonderful heyday, but now has these massive fish die-offs. These are tilapia fish that have all gone belly up and this is somewhat recent photograph of one of these motels. So you have a very complicated ecology, according to Odom, of this body of water and this is the state of California's proposals at the time. You see anything from 2.3 billion to 5.8 billion, mostly to treat it like it's a dead entity and how can we kind of let it slowly die and how can we generate a border that quarantines maybe one portion with water and one portion that will go dry? And this is because it's evaporating at a high rate and as it evaporates it gets more and more salinated. So the proposal here was to, rather than using the kind of agrarian, the land for cash and putting, dumping waste water into the body of water, which is what's making it salinated, could there be an exchange? Could you look at aquacultural opportunities of that body of water, possibly even water harvesting itself, as well as maybe curtail the Imperial Valley productivity? So could they collaborate? So this is a representation of this soft planning idea, which would be one kind of like, again, Odom's diagram where the flows or elements coming in and out of that body of water would actually relate to larger markets or larger economies like Canada's desire for salt in the winter or California's desire for fresh water, likewise fish farming and algae farming and so forth. And so could you make a sort of soft planning system that might have key characters that are actors on that stage? So this could be maybe one proposition. And hopefully what it might do is it might offer that if the first 100 years of productivity in that region was about these elements, butter, two fruits and vegetables, but that the next phase might be about other commodities, other desirables within a projective future. And number three, know your Umveld. So Jacob von Ukskul, an experimental biologist, characterizes the environment in two ways, that there is those that see the environment as it's actual, all of the elements that you see, which is in this top image here. So this is, let's say, the perspective of a bumblebee, that we might see the field as everything it encompasses, but a bee edits that landscape and sees only the things that are of interest to it. Let's say a flower and then stuff that's of no interest just becomes black in the background. And I think that this perspective on an environment or a landscape, kind of from who or from what perspective do you see that space? This is a project we're working on related to that idea of perspective. This is quite literally the most remote place in the world. This is the island of Tristan, Dakota, which is on a volcano about 1,500 miles from Cape Town in Africa. This is a RIBA competition last summer and three teams of four teams actually are moving forward in the second phase. And actually it's been slowed down a lot by just the difficulty of communicating with the people on Tristan, Dakota. There are about 250 people that live on the island, 17 families, I think there are 11 different last names you could have, something like that. The most populous names, they all have the last name, Glass, I don't know if Philip Glass is aware of that. Maybe that's his origins. And there's basically two plots on this island. It's a volcano. There is a portion of land called the patches, which is where they grow potatoes. And you can see stone walls enclosing these patches and each family owns a potato patch. And then there is the city, town, sorry. And what we were looking at is ways, and this was a question of how do we move forward in this century? They import a lot of building materials, they import some food, they've struggled with exporting rock lobster, that sort of thing. So we're looking at ways to merge landscape and their form of town construction by introducing more urban patches and that these would become experiments for solar energy and experiments for actually soil producing soil. So that's one thing that they struggle with. That's a reason that they only grow potatoes as they struggle with the kind of diversity in their soil. This is the site. They also asked for a new administrative center. This has been a very humbling project because as soon as we thought about everything literally has to be found locally. So we're working a lot with Gaby and Walls and thatch kind of modern interpretations of thatch roofs and this has been a very humbling design project to work on. And I'm gonna zip through this one, Play the World Game, Bucky Fuller's World Game, which really has to do with about imagining a kind of democratic space in which to play out haves and have nots and exchange systems. And this project of which there are too many images but this is a project we've been working on. It's a collection of case studies about the Canadian Arctic which looks at spatial practice in the north and different ways to define the north. We look at utilities. We look at, so sometimes utilities are above ground. We look at snow fences, the making of foundations and buildings. Just in a way, how have people that occupy and live in the Arctic, how have they had to adapt their environment or adapt their way of life according to these extremities? Even Inuit, my favorite one that I'll probably, the only one that I'll show is muscle harvesting in northern Quebec, which involves going below the ice as the tide recedes. So you would dig a hole in the ice. You would go below in the kind of cavernous space between ice and low tide water as it's retreated, collect muscles in this amazing kind of space between and go on your way. Last one is interact with your energy, which is the idea, and it was nice to see Iceland mentioned earlier with the alcoa plant. And many of you know the blue lagoon as well as significant tourist attraction, which is literally an accident and a man-made retrofitted accident that has silica and sulfur and has at least medicinal qualities. And this is a wonderful way to think of how we might interact with energy, that you participate in it, that you're active in it and you're engaged in it. So the last project is a proposal for the Land Art Generator initiative where we merged a parachute and a kite in Abu Dhabi and using the Shamal winds that you find in that region that you could have a, both a kind of almost like aerial writing, a series of these kites. This was a collaboration with Luis Culejas, Colombian landscape architect, and that you could get these kind of sky writings from this field of paracites, as we called them, and it would respond to different conditions based upon your appetite for interaction. So you've got the entrepreneur where you could donate money and you could get a free view from that paracite of the wonderful landscape. If you're a tourist, you could get a kind of periscope experience with that. If you're an adventurer, you could actually, after signing a waiver, of course, you could ride up on that kite. So this was maybe a alternate possibility for how we interact with our energy. So I just wanted to leave you with those five points on energy publics. Thank you very much. Thanks so much, David and Amal. I'm delighted to be here and I'm particularly delighted at my pairing with Mason. I would have loved to have been paired with anybody here today. I admire their work so much, but I've been following the work of Mason and Lola in lateral office for years. In addition, just what you presented, I feel like we have some great resonances on which to speak. And then the third thing that I was just thinking about as you spoke, I really was moved by your image of the TVA dams. Given that I've had many careers in my life and probably most of you know about a number of them, probably no one knows that I once ran a power plant outside of Nashville, Tennessee on the Cumberland River, which had its own hydroelectric dam. So I worked with TVA off and on in running that dam. So very odd types of connections on that. I'm gonna talk about location as well. But I'm gonna talk about location in a different way than it's typically talked about when we think about buildings, when we think about energy, when we think about products, when we think about materials. I'm gonna talk about location not as a spatial dimension, so not as a measure dimension. And I'm not gonna talk about it in relationship to an artifact. An artifact being a material, a product, a wall, a building, an infrastructure. So I'm gonna put forward three different ideas of how we might reconfigure what location is and sort of open up a discussion on it. And I'm gonna start with the most pragmatic of these reconfigurings on this. An idea of attribution. In this case, the idea of attribution has to do with even where we locate the discussion about embodied energy. I'm sure that pretty much everybody in here has seen this quote that comes from the Department of Energy. What I find interesting about this quote is even though it's their current statement about embodied energy, basically saying it's not important because it's small relative to operational energy. It was something that shows up first in 2011. They haven't updated its sense. It's still something that you see when you click on embodied energy for the Department of Energy. It's still this sort of like notice like we know what it is, but it's not really important. So compare it as well to, so the next two slides I'm gonna give you which are sort of different ways of accounting. This is something we've all seen before many, many times. We see the Sankey diagram coming out every single year. We've got our buildings which comprise the residential and the commercial aspects of it, then there's industrial and transportation. And however you add it up, whether it's 40% or more than 40%, that's residential, commercial. And then the buildings part in terms of operating industrial buildings goes into that as well. What's really interesting from this number is embodied energy doesn't get counted to buildings. All the embodied energy that we deal with gets counted in the industrial sector and not in the industrial sector part that's attributed to operating their buildings. Basically it's sort of all on the side over there. And as a result, one of the real key things to be concerned about is that industry has outpaced every other sector in terms of its efficiency, in terms of getting control of its emissions. And when you put embodied energy there and not in the building sector, you're not recognizing what its impacts are gonna be for the future. Particularly impacts when we start looking at what's happening worldwide in terms of the rate at which we're building. So the projections that are taking place right now for looking at worldwide energy use, misaccounting for the role in body energy is gonna play because it's being counted against a very different type of projection than the one that actually should be a piece of. And this is not sort of gone unnoticed. Working group three from the IPCC finally picked up on this in 2014 and put out this in one of their chapters. What it's looking at is all of the embodied energy in the world right now. So that's going to be, that's all of these bars here. So this is accounting for all of the carbon that's now an embodied energy throughout the world as it exists. This is where they expect it to go. So they expect all of this now to be filled in. That's their projections in terms of what's gonna be happening over until 2050 in terms of how much the world is going to be building. This will be the rest of the embodied energy that we're gonna be adding to it. So it's a stunning number. It's more than double. That's what is there right now. And if you go back to that Department of Energy number that we just looked at, the one that had said that embodying energy is only about 10 to 15% of operating energy of building. And of course you think about well, if operating energy of buildings is 40% then 10% of that would be 4%. What they're also showing in this chart is that they expect that future carbon emissions fully 30% of future carbon emissions will simply go into buildings and infrastructure. This is not a set of numbers that we have been talking about. We haven't been talking about them within the field of architecture. We haven't been talking about them beyond the field of architecture because they're showing up and not really being accounted for until this particular chart that came out from the IPCC on this. So this issue of attribution where even the discussion is located, how we're even accounting for this. This is a really critical one to raise the level of importance in this particular area. The next one is gonna be about contingency. What's contingent? What's constituent? And the way that we examine things and the way we compare things. And so much of the discussion about embodied energy has been looking at, for example, our construction materials, our wall materials, our structural materials looking for substitutes for those. We're treating the way that we do things now as constituent. We're not questioning the way that we do things now. We're sort of operating subordinate to the way that we do things now, but treating those as constituent. And I'm suggesting now that many of those things can be considered as much more contingent. And I'll give you an example of this. So this is a report that came out from the Department of Energy looking to the life cycle assessment of LED lighting products. And so if you think about the way that we've been approaching LED products, basically as a substitute for conventional lighting systems as a replacement in many cases for whether we're replacing incandescence directly on a smaller task level or replacing fluorescence and high intensity discharge in a larger building level. A very peculiar thing if you think about it because the whole way that we distribute light in buildings, particularly in commercial and industrial buildings, is based on a series of things that happened before 1939. There's no rationale for ceiling-based lighting in this day and age. And yet our lighting is still ceiling-based. And so we're worried about sort of replacing the individual lamps. We're not thinking about the fact that we actually have when we switch to something like LEDs, which have a very different infrastructure requirement than do anything that requires a ballast. When we start to switch to something like LED lamps, we're not reconsidering how differently we could light. Retreating what is constituent is the technology that exists becomes the standard or the benchmark that we compare to. I mean, I compare it to what's happening in the dashboard of a car. Being a mechanical engineer, in our world, the automotive industry is pretty low on the totem pole in terms of innovation, although in architecture we look up to it. But this is an example of actually taking LEDs, designing for what you see as opposed to the idea. Now that I'm at Yale, I always pick on Harvard. This is a library at Gund Hall that I'm sure a lot of you recognize. While I was a student there, it underwent this energy retrofit of all the lighting. This is back in the fluorescent days. And they came in. And as you can see, no matter where you are in the library, where a body can go, where a body can't go, you might be near windows. You might be deep in the bowels of the library. It might be circulation. It might be a stack. It's the same. This is a relentless lighting. None of it particularly useful. But this sort of idea of as the technology changes, it's not just a question of looking for a more efficient technology, not just a question of looking for a lower embodied energy technology, but also sort of that leap in terms of re-understanding how it is that we begin to use these different types of systems, what those opportunities are to break apart what we normally consider to be constituent on them. And this next slide is actually going to relate very, very closely to what Mason showed. And I had no idea he was going to be showing his camping project. So about a year ago, I really wanted to get back to some of my original doctoral research when I had a grant from DARPA to look at micro-machines. And so I sort of reinserted myself back into what was happening with the military in terms of micro-power last January. And I apologize for the slides. What they were willing to unclassify aren't particularly graphically pleasing. But I was really fascinated in the conversations in Washington on this that what they had been dealing with in terms of power, both power generation as well as power supply, so two different things actually, was that in Afghanistan, one out of three casualties involves fuel, delivering fuel or guarding fuel, one out of three casualties related to fuel. And then on top of it, the typical soldier carries 70 batteries in his or her backpack. So imagine 70 batteries for all of the different types of electronic equipment that they now carry. That would cover them for a 72-hour period, which is the maximum they felt and given the weight of batteries that they could never go longer than a 72-hour period on this. And so much of the discussions were taking place in terms of sort of restaging the way operations took place, finding more strategic relationships between things, sort of challenging the idea of where different types of base camps were, what a sort T would comprise. But all of that sort of understanding that because their objective was to save lives and to reduce injuries. But all of that is sort of like a design based on a minimum energy footprint in terms of deployment. So really understanding that deployment, it's totally a counterpart what Mason was showing in terms of his camp. Matter of fact, now that's my new example. I'm going to show that from now on. I'm not going to show this image anymore when I sort of talk about this idea of a strategic redeployment of how people move, where resources are located, how things are shared, what's collective, what has to be individual, what ends up being sort of like a sensor pod idea of certain types of footholds that are made that things operate from. But a really interesting idea on what has to be constituent, what has to be contingent on this. And the last thing ends up being a lot more personal for me. And it's sort of thinking about location but as a phenomenal location. Again, not as a dimension location but as a phenomenal location. In some ways it actually goes back, starts with the lighting example but moves from there. So we see a lot about the passive house a lot. And if you look at sort of these different analyses that take place in the passive house, and I'll show you two that are completely contradictory, the one from the passive house institute is trying to show how for just a teeny bit more embodied energy, you're going to get this dramatic reduction in operating energy. And that's what makes it such a great investment. And you come down here and it shows that it's a large amount of embodied energy that really doesn't pay off in the long run. Matter of fact, you're better off doing pretty much anything but according to this. So if you were to ask me which one is correct, I'd say I don't care. It doesn't matter to me which one is correct because I think they're asking the wrong question on this. And they're wrestling with the wrong question on this. If we think about how walls actually work, we have so much depended upon choosing the material. We think that performance of whether we're talking to performance of a technology or we're talking performance of a system or performance of a wall has everything to do with the material that we use. Has everything to do with the property of that material, what would be an intensive property of that material. But the way walls perform have to do with their context. So one of the things about the context of walls, and these are the ones that we'd find in all of our buildings, whether we're talking about a wall or we're actually talking about a human body here, is that, oops, sorry, back up a bit, is that this is a critical point here where that flow shifts from being laminar flow to becoming turbulent flow. So if we look at typical conditions that we might have on the interior, this is insulating, this is conductive. It's about a factor of 10 difference, one to the other. And so this material property that you might get in terms of conductivity is actually a very, very particular test done under particular conditions. So you can compare materials in those conditions one to the other because the test is standardized, but it doesn't tell you how it's going to perform. So for an example, a really easy way of thinking about this is that a strip window, a horizontal strip window, transfers half as much heat as the same window turned vertically because you're going to be affecting that zone in which that transition takes place. So it's not about the material per se, but it's about the context of the material that governs its behavior. So when I was doing my doctorate and I was taking additional courses in fluid mechanics, I was really taken by this one image and Triton's great book on physical fluid dynamics about these different ways of perturbing the boundary layer in order to initiate turbulence. And so I ended up doing a series of computational experiments where I took a variety of different devices, resistance wires, halogen lamps, and little, little tiny micro heat pumps to use them in order to adjust that heat transfer. So we're looking at a section right now. And you can barely see the little tiny, in this case, they were little, little tiny resistance wires that are located in the center in order to disrupt a boundary layer and start to create different kinds of conditions in here. But the whole point of this work was to show you can go and you can build yourself a really thick wall or you can take a thin wall and actually control the behavior of the wall with very small, very strategic, very thoughtful types of interventions. So this is where I'm going to be concluding on this in that what I became very interested in then from this particular work was realizing that if we look at the whole reason we build and thinking about it from, even starting from the tent on, but thinking about it from shelter, to security, to dealing with climate control, to dealing with visual control, all of the different things that we demand from our buildings are really all things that operate here. We're trying to do something for the human body. We're trying to manipulate one of the phenomenological behaviors in order to do that. What it means is that when we think about location, we're really thinking about location of our intervention taking place in between the two, understanding the physical phenomena in our context, understanding how we sort of want to manipulate that phenomena, knowing how we want to interact with human physiology and of course interacting with human physiology. In some cases, if we're dealing with our sense of comfort or seeing something, we're also interacting with perception. But the actual place of intervention and however one might intervene, whether it's with a material intervention or some other type of intervention, it actually happens in between those two. So real idea terms are a real challenge to the idea that location is automatically associated with the building artifact. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. That was really nice. And actually I think you sort of updated Rainer Bannam's campfire there with your last image. I feel like I need to supplant that kind of notion despite its simplicity. I feel like it's a more contemporary addition that you have there in terms of the site, the idea of location between those perception and behaviors. I mean, it fits within that same type of I think thematic framework. It might be manifest in a different way but it fits within that framework. It's just that I think sometimes our framework is so co-opted by the material artifact that we want to imbue authority into the material artifacts that we make and that's why we want the super envelope. This is why we make these decisions around those types of things. Yet conceptually we get that. We get the idea of the intervention. This is why I'm so interested in your propositions and your work because for a long time I also feel besides being very material-centric we're very property-centric. And so when we talk about something like a net zero energy building it's actually quite a ludicrous idea if you think about it from an energy standpoint, if you think about it from a thermodynamic standpoint, I mean you're basically taking a unit of private property and thinking that's an appropriate place to do an energy balance. And I was really impressed by the way that you're starting to sort of erode that idea of property as being to determine it both in terms of the drilling down, the reaching up, but also sort of like this fluidity of where even that line is drawn. And for me I'm fascinated by this and I'm really interested that we do this but I don't know how. And I think that's my question for you is that how do we find a way, given the fact that we ultimately will implement according to material interventions and we're going to implement according to property, how do we instead think in these other terms yet understand that we're gonna implement in these ways? Yeah, I mean property determines a lot certainly in an urban environment. We're working on a project right now in the Arctic actually in the Canadian North for an elder care facility. It'll be about 55 to 70 beds. And there was a point, and so the city, the city of Ocalae owns property and has site and then there is Inuit owned lands. There are lands that are kind of owned by no one. In fact actually Inuit people just voted to or are considering whether to vote on whether there was an idea of ownership at all. But a portion because of the size of the building it actually has to spill over the property line between what might be ownable property into territory that's really used for hunting and so forth. So we're now looking at that property line and it's a collaboration between owners in some ways to use this to make an exception to this rule. And this has been complicated but I think it does get at some of these questions about how my new notions of land use and land ownership actually help foster perceptions about location and even the kind of basket, the catchment area or the basket of that structure. But I think you're right on in terms of ideas about like when it hits the physical components there's I think a lot of misunderstandings. I was gonna ask you though, do you think that, I don't know if we have time for anymore, but just a quick question was that do you think that we are in our kind of physical world and these last images you show are very, sometimes microscopic or sometimes are about the invisible. Often your work is in your studies even that NASA before was often about the invisibles. Is it, do you think we are accurately approaching ways to represent the invisible to make it tangible to those that for which that normally is a difficult thing to understand architecturally speaking? When you look at, let's say for example, HVAC systems, these are boring but very conventional and common place systems, but ways to understand rooms or buildings or heat emissions, where are we in that? Yeah, I think that's an incredible challenge for the field of architecture in terms of dealing with this, that this is part of how we're gonna move forward in terms of representational systems are beginning to deal with these things in many ways it takes us back to the keynote this morning in that I'm trying to remember exactly what you said but something about the fact that we think we know how things work except it's almost always completely the opposite. When it comes to things that are not tangible, our assumptions are almost always wrong. We think our senses tell us what's going on, they're actually sensing our body responding to something but they're not sensing what's around them. Even our eyes are not particularly good at reading what's around us, it's really quite fascinating. So I think it's actually one of the many things that falls within our field as an opportunity to lead the world and it is finding the different ways that we can communicate and visualize what it is that's not visualizable right now in order to teach others what's going on out there because these are where these decisions are being made and what happens when we aren't able to visualize these behaviors or these phenomena we fall back on what we know and it's falling back on what we know which has kept us I think so much mired in let's just say particularly when it deals with building technologies really old archaic technologies that we still depend on. Thanks, I was curious about, you had mentioned a sort of lack of imagination when it comes to the planning of the use of lighting and I was wondering if you thought about or if you think people are focusing at all on the future of driverless cars which really are gonna happen and I think are going to profoundly alter the physical space we live in and I don't see that much or hear that much about people. People will talk about it like I'd love for my mom to not have to drive, that kind of thing but it will be a kind of revolutionary advance and it isn't gonna be that long from now. I was just wondering. I would say for me I haven't even thought about it other than for my own pleasure, you know and my dream of having a driverless car but I hadn't really thought about it in this relationship and actually that's an intriguing example of this sort of disconnect of the visual system from a series of actions that one takes. It's actually a fantastic model for us to be thinking about in that standpoint so I can't answer the question in terms of have I done anything like this and I don't know if you have. I've seen a few thesis projects but yeah and I think even other notions of collective Uber and other kinds of collective behaviors or for example. Right. Yeah, the urban artifacts that come with that that may disappear. Yeah, I don't know how that would change a place like Houston. But it is a great model for sort of trying to understand this bodily disconnect we have from a series of environmental and environmental I'm using that even yet another definition of yours. I mean, that which surrounds us in terms of physical phenomena is a great model for studying that. One or two. Sorry, I just had a brief question based Michelle on your presentation. We all know that things like our values are generalized ideal values that may or may not have anything to do with this but they're extremely useful in the real commercial world of pushing forward a particular agenda. The kind of bespoke careful contextualized analysis that you're talking about especially things like fluid dynamics are much more difficult to translate into that kind of a context. How do you see that bridge being made? That's a really big question and it also I think I'm at that age where my dreams get smaller all the time. Like I said, I'm just very excited about the driverless car. I hope it happens before I die. But certainly when I did that work 20 years ago I thought it was gonna happen. Yet even the simulation tools that I used back then are not available in the architecture world which are kind of sad if you think about it. That we have tools that look just like that but aren't acting at that particular level and depth of detail. And so I think I've really refined where I've been going in terms of it's going back to this idea of being strategic. So there's a sense of being strategic in terms of phenomena and really understanding how you wanna intervene on phenomena but there's also a sense of being strategic and this is sort of where I am now in terms of what is no longer, I'm no longer interested in what's optimal. I'm interested in what's possible and sort of finding what the ideal point of strategic possibility and that possibility might be in terms of financially, it's reasonable, something that could be deployable in the poorest sectors of society. What are those types of strategic operations? So the modeling of it or the thinking of it might exist in one realm but then how do you pull from that to use it to ask questions about what you do in everyday life? And I'd say I'm in that range now as opposed to thinking that we're actually gonna make big inroads in terms of the way that we really think about our buildings. I wanted to just ask, maybe I'll ask Mason this question but it's pretty interesting the idea of energy publics because the very idea of the public or a public has been sort of under attack and many people have thought that it's not possible to kind of formulate a singular audience or public. So maybe you could just speculate, I think it's pretty exciting to think about energy publics and what might be some of the characteristics? You're with the blue lagoon, you're kind of hinting on some kind of new sensual engagement or something that's corporeal and I'm wondering if you could, or collective in some way, could you muse about that a little bit? Really quickly, a great question, Sheila. I was very influenced by the book Massive Change when it came out that Bruce Maude worked on. It was kind of a early internet book where it's a little schizophrenic to look at but I think it collects and I think the exhibition also collected a lot of really inspiring possibilities. It was structured by military, economics, et cetera. And I think for me the premise, and it probably had driverless cars in it somewhere in one of the chapters about mobility, let's say. But what really inspired me about that book was the idea that in order to create or in order to foster considerable change is that we shouldn't underestimate the possibility of seduction in that and the possibility of it to be inspiring. So let's take cars, for example, would we all want to buy an eco car? Sure we would, would we want to buy it more if it was a little streamlined, maybe it was red? I mean, seems superficial, but I think that the possibility versus it to look green. So I don't, just generally speaking, I think the possibility of Massive Change can be further enhanced and supported by I think some of the wonderful images like that Blaine showed in projects and in your work as well and much of the work that we'll see today that says that it's not just about showing that the numbers work to prove it in a spreadsheet but really to complement that with something inspiring that we haven't seen before and that's what really generates, I think, future possibilities in architecture. So subscribe to that mode of thinking. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.