 So one of the effects of this change in capitalist time is to give a new privilege to bring this to sheer size. It's a full factor in megacities. The communion character of institutions tends to extract value from the places in which the institutions are established rather than create a regime which is installed, which controls the urban agglomeration of the whole, where it's established, which reserves authority over the city as well as derives profit from it. And that's a profound change in the relationship of economic institutions to civil society. I feel very cruelly in this kind of capitalist organization, economic interests have less and less interest in the civic realm and particularly have no desire to claim authority over aspects of the civil and civic realm, which exclude their own immediate interests. Now, this is the problem. These create, we're talking about inequalities of size, and we're talking about reformulation so that the power is divorced, if you like, from the questions of civic domination. And the question is, what is it that we poor, poor us as urban designers and planners could do about this? My colleague, Harry Cobb, with whom I've talked about her for a minute in the past, has always said that we can't do anything about it. We are not the engineers of social lives and we can't expect to be its doctors. And I take this opportunity of having traveled 13,000 miles to conduct, once again with my old colleague, a debate that's conducted in the past. I think we can do something about it. And the hypocriticals that we contain do no harm, can be executed in this regard. I want to suggest three ways in which this is the case. First, has to do with the question of scale itself. One of the diseases of urban design, the sicknesses of urban design in the last century, was that we found that as there was an increase of scale in projects, that the projects themselves decreased in their social complexity. That is, they got larger and simpler, bigger and accruter. In the urban age, this is an issue that has come up over and over again in many different contexts. It appeared to us, first of all, when we had a discussion in the light, for instance, about the revamping of a large transport center called Case Cross, in which a very large mega-project did absolute vials to the input in which it was sent. It's something that came up when we traveled to Shanghai, and our design of comics in Shanghai described the violence that's being done behind the area of the Bund in Shanghai, by very large-scale projects which have civilified what was a very complex environment. The question that's involved here is how, and I should say one way to think about this, when you have a correlation between increasing the scale of a project and decreasing complexity, one of the signal social marks is the evacuation of the people who were in the space before that project. Their problems are complicated. It's easier to erase them, to evict them, and start over in order to make something clear than actually to address how Hedoprydes recommends to us the complexities on the ground. So what is to be done about this? I think that one way to take the Hippocratic oath is to use complexity as a measure of quality, which may seem rather vacuous for me to do. It means in particular that we use street-grade as a primary measure of complexity in the cities. Whenever we think about renewing, about building, the complexity of street-grade becomes our first point of reference. This is an issue that our colleague, I'm making, Pennilosa, has put into practice, as I've described to us tomorrow, in trying to remade the streets of Bogota as pedestrian sites. They're more complicated than the streets that existed before. The grade has become complex. I would argue that the first point we can take as hypocritical as the cities is to use complexity as a measure of quality and conceive complexity in terms of complication of grade. The second way we might observe the Hippocratic oath to do no harm deals with another project, a problem that we, as designers and planners, have encountered as this mobile family of the urban age groups around the world. It is a problem which I've been referring to since I have school of time. It just is an architectural issue. It has to do with the problem of over-determined form. When we try to make a project very precise, particularly if it's a very large project, we try to define an advanced relation between form and function. We try to make physical objects like buildings which perfectly suit the purposes we decide to be defined in advance. This produces a phenomenon that I've used in very inadequate words to characterize the image, which is brutalness. It means that the objects, built objects that have this capacity, become very rigid, very inflexible as conditions change in the city. The objects themselves prove resistance to adaptation. That is, they're clear objects, but they're not sustainable. Now, one thing driving this kind of brutalness is the demand made by capital investment for buildings which you could have instead been so trading on a market if you didn't know what a right is of real estate investment trust. Their character, their criteria for buying and selling buildings all revolve around the issue of the fit between form and function, driven by the notion that you know what you're buying or you know what you're selling. But in terms of the life of cities, this kind of fit produces something that inhibits the process of adaptation and sustainability.