 Thanks, Tai, but that was right to the second, you know, on the dot. That was fantastic. A question for you and for Joseph, and I'm just going to say quickly that we are not going to go onto the floor because I think we're running out of time and it would be really good to sort of get a quick round going. So the last quotation you showed there I think is really great, the one about engagement with a different kind of imaginary. I think that's a very important question. I would love to hear from you if there are any examples of those engagements from the Lagos, if not from the Lagos, at least from the Nigerian, you know, housing sector. And Joseph, I think the images you showed of some of the work you have done are actually really interesting examples of that sort of like very grounded imaginary. So I think it's that there's a very interesting overlap between what you're talking about, but I just wanted to kind of put that on the table and just try to get a, yeah. Okay, a lot of Lagos has been governed by residence associations amongst the middle income and then with the local communities associations among the low income. And so the power of cooperatives is very strong. Residence associations are the ones that are actually providing the infrastructure in many of the communities and unfortunately they are just being ignored. They're not seen as an important stakeholder in the reshaping of the city and until they are able to have a space at the table of planning, of governance and of even providing the infrastructure of the city, there will continue to be gaps. I think to build on what she said, we also, the Kenyan Federation of Slamduelas, we organize around women collectives, around cooperatives. And I think there is a realization that that is not enough. And I think, as I said earlier, issues of housing, issue of transforming cities is the responsibility of all. I think we realize Slamduelas, they have a right to housing, they have a right to services, but they also have a responsibility and responsibility is not to sit and wait for houses to fall from heaven, they have a responsibility. And that's why we have been acting with this project we are doing in Mokuru. We have mobilized 42 organizations which are giving the city a service. It's in scales. So when the city declared this part of it, we were addressing a land issue. Somebody said the entire Nairobi is at the risk of most Slamduelas are at a risk of being evicted or the 100% almost all the land in informal settlements is inhabited by Slamduelas. And the other thing is also the plan we are developing for Mokuru. How does it fit in the mass plan? I think I have a right to say stupid. Somebody said a president earlier. We had a very stupid master plan which was basically saying you plan for the city but don't plan for the informal settlements. And the question was how can you not plan? Somebody was saying 30% of residents of Nairobi is a city of 4 million, over 4 million people. It's not 30%. Almost 60% of the residents of Slamduelas of Nairobi live in informal settlements. We usually say for every person in Nairobi, you have a relative in the informal settlement whether you like it or not. So for us, how does this plan fit in the bigger master plan for Nairobi? The master plan at the moment at the city level is bring down old houses, put up new, more expensive, shinier houses. We think that we, as she said in Lagos, that is not a solution. The solution is to improve, is to upgrade the informal settlements. I think one of the interesting points at this stage of a conversation like this is that you could conclude that any form of planning is useless, depressing and bad. But I think we should also remind ourselves that you can do it well and we have heard one and have experienced other examples. And I was wondering, Jose, might you comment on that in the sense that could one take from this conversation anything that is positive? Well, I showed the Kennedy visiting two housing states in the 1960s as a moment of optimism because in my mind it combines two issues. One is let's call it that at the end of the day, urban planning and the production of housing is a political act. And if we try to turn it into strictly a technocratic act of just supply and demand, we will just be replicating mistakes. So the question for me is whether we could connect the housing delivery system to a planning protocol that combines the best about what's political, who do we cater, who pays for it, who finances it, who benefits and who are the losers, with a more informed research-based grammar of success, but also grammar of failures. It's actually surprising that in a way the eight presentations today have talked about forms of research. The real transformation today at InfoNabit is that there's now a research unit well funded doing relevant work bringing not only the architects to rethink the problems of social housing, but actually connecting knowledge to action. And that's a way in which the technical can become political. Will you end on this point of feedback, Lutz? I wanted to add from what I'm hearing around the table is that there are communities who could help themselves. You know, they have resources to mobilize and this calls to mind. Something that I read about the housing development in Lima, in Peru, where for the informal settlements, what they did was they gave land titles to the informal settlers. And upon receiving the land titles because that is security of Taneo. And that actually accelerated housing investment by the community themselves, where they would then use their savings to retrofit, to upgrade their own house to as much as 60% of expenditure. So I think there seems to be pockets of different models, different housing models, different strokes for different situations because like in Thailand they have CODI, Community Organization Development Initiative, which has worked with the local communities because what the communities lack sometimes is the know-how, how to do, how to engage in conversation with the policymakers, how to mobilize resources that is within themselves. So I think there is opportunity for better understanding what is possible within the communities. And this brings up the importance of research, R&D, the importance of understanding, finding out what is really needed by the communities, by the people who are going to live in these houses. If we take what Belinda is saying, Gautam, Taibat, in your context, is there enough trust to actually take this language and apply it where you are, or not? Because I don't hear that. I mean, I'll be honest, I don't think there are any communities that are saying that they don't want engagement with the state of it planning. It is about the terms of engagement that they want with planning. And I think that if we have an 18 million housing shortage, we also have nine million vacant houses. Now, you put those two together. For me, what the state needs to be doing when it speaks of housing is to think about its role also as a regulator of real estate and land markets. There are many things communities cannot do and should not do at scale. And to me, there's two parts that are the focus. Large-scale trunk infrastructure should not be building underground drains in an auto-constructive matter. And two, the second is the opportunity to hold on to some forms of land in rapidly expanding cities. The state, unfortunately currently in the Indian context, is focusing on micro-planning and building affordable housing for people who can build their own. But it is not doing the work communities needed to, which is protecting them the time for them to get there. And actually talking about the most patient capital, I know, which is speculative real estate, which will sit on peri-urban edges of cities for 25 years in buildings they will complete at 90% but not close, because it's not about that apartment. No one is ever meant to live in $700,000. They're holding on to the land. They're not actually building housing. So the question for planning for me is, let the state begin to regulate land in real estate. Not only think about housing when it has to find beneficiaries instead of partners. Yes, I'm going further from there. The challenge we have in Lagos is that the planning framework doesn't recognize the informal communities. And if 95% of transactions occur outside of the state sanctioned one, then the whole city is informal. The situation now is, well, land is very valuable because there's not a lot of it in Lagos, but we need to renegotiate how the city has been shaped for the stakeholders. And planning needs to step beyond technical. And planning also needs to learn from how people are producing the houses. In fact, planning, especially in the context of Lagos, needs to step away from the British, you know, the colonial framework, which is what we have inherited. And which we have not grown beyond. So I think we'd thank you very much for that comment. I think we should begin to conclude. I just want to reflect on two concepts, two, and a number of phrases that were brought up in the scene setting discussions this morning. Alcindor has been sitting here quietly. But it's quite interesting how we have not mentioned the word young people for about four hours, just as a reflection. You raise that point. And perhaps there's an inadequacy in terms of what the frameworks and the models of thinking to who's going to be living in these places is exactly those generations. Where does the public realm come into that? And I was touched by that, and I think we need to reflect on it. Similarly, I guess Edgar's challenge to Parkstau and to others about how we're organizing, how we're setting up systems where we can make cities which are more complex and more diverse. Perhaps that conversation could be richer. And in terms of what we've been saying in the last hour and a half, I think there's a lot that needs to go back in there. And imagination is part of that process, not to mention funding subsidy and taxation. All those are issues that we're going to at least touch upon tomorrow. This is where I just want to wind up and this session. But before I give you some remarks for how we're going to do things tomorrow, can you please join me in thanking this great panel? Thank you very much. We haven't gone back to that, but maybe the broken heart can be fixed. It's sort of a metaphor which I'm going away with. The plan for tomorrow, there are just a few announcements I want to make, is that we're starting at 9.30, but with a slight change of program in relation to what you have on your yellow document. We are starting at 9.30 on the dot, Vera Songway, the executive secretary of the ECA, the Economic Commission for Africa, who will be giving a keynote speech, broadly on issues of the challenges of financing urbanization in Africa. She will be introduced by Susanna Moorhead, who is the British ambassador. And as I mentioned before, we will be bracketing that with the German ambassador with closing remarks with Anna Herrhausen. A couple of very, very simple things to bear in mind. Please bring your lanyards for tomorrow. Otherwise, you have to re-register. So if you just have this, you can come straight in. There are two parallel events organized on Saturday. One is organized by the Goethe Institute and another by the Urban Center. More information is available for both of these events outside in terms of leaflets on the tables. So if you want to engage in that, please take up the information and talk to the relevant people who will make themselves known to you. Thank you very much for all of you. It's amazing to see the density and intensity of this room, which only reflects the density and intensity of the issue of developing urban futures. We very much look forward to seeing you tomorrow morning for coffee at 9 so we can start functionally at 9.30. Thank you all very much. Thank you.