 I'm fully aware we're going a bit into the lunch break and justifying that means to bring the audience a bit into this conversation. So if you could have the lights on and for 15 minutes we'll have a bit of an interaction between maybe some of the questions you may have. We have microphones roving around so raise your hand. Maybe there was a moment already where we got a lot of applause, or Julia got a lot of applause for disagreeing with Joel. And maybe there are a few people who actually really feel they want to say something about that, to take a point about either disciplining the architects or actually undisciplining the architects. But that's just one suggestion. Is there anyone who would like to say something? So I'll look here. No? No one? Over there. We have a gentleman. Third row. Fourth row. And we'll just collect a few comments, questions. Thank you. And then come back. I think it's a very interesting discussion. And I would just refer back to the notion of the polymath we heard about earlier today in this rich construction between the urbanism and architecture. I think maybe the best example of this type of polymath is maybe the assemble example where you are a group of not only architects. I think the problem with being, let's say, only an architect is that if you have a hammer, you usually see the nail as the problem. And I see a little bit that in some of these project examples that are presented with the water and the sewage, that it's to work in the urban context, I think the sewage system shows it quite well, that in the end, maybe the most important part was the capacity building for the local people to administer these new systems themselves. So it was more an educational than architectural or more precisely, it was both. Okay. Thank you very much. There was another person, the lady just in front, I believe raising the hand. No? Okay. So then I'm there, right there. Yes. And if you could please say who you are. What's yours? Okay. I'm Karla Schulter-Fischelig from Berlin and I was thinking about the last point, what means the notion of home. I think I saw something about a project of, I think, Austria and they built up tents in the building because the main point what people need is intimacy, sorry for my English. And also the possibility for quite room and I think that's the thing that's important perhaps to think about it. Second point is there's also an interesting film about how refugee camps are planned and built up and I think it would be important if it's not the case for the moment to get in contact with these people with all the rules they are working on to think about how it could deal with the architecture, I think the communication at this point is very important. And the third point I was thinking about it was I completely agree with you. I think I would even tell it more strong. Climate change is a very special situation, very urgent situation, I have been in Paris for the climate conference and all people have to change their minds, their profession to see what they can do to change it in my mind. Thank you very much. We have two more comments on this side, one here, then over there, we'll return to the table and then I'll cover the other side. Is it good? Okay. My name is Fondas de Elismas, I come from Athens, Greece. I would like to go back to the matter of the discipline and the role of architect. So I would like to make a remark and say that it is very much affected in my opinion by the way that we architects are taught and the education we took. And this education put us on top of the pyramid, like we're on top of everything, that people work for us and not with us. And I think that in this whole context that we're talking about, this scheme is now turned from a pyramid into a circle, right, with just one point of the circle, as equal and as important as others. So this question of ego for us architects, you know, we have to put our ego down in some way and try to operate in a different manner. And this is kind of difficult, I think, for many architects. It has to do with the question of authorship, of authorship, of, you know, the design, what is mine, what have I done, what have I contributed to the project and all. So this is my remark. Okay. Thank you. And the final one over there. Sorry. I was thinking of the man in the third row, Greyhaven, I may point out. My name is Marcelo Balbo from the University of Venice. I want to thank particularly the two last speakers, because they contributed to this issue of refugees, but they didn't speak very much about migrants. And this, I think, bridges to what we have been, you have been talking about yesterday on the city. It seems to me that here, during these two days, the issue of migrants in terms of diverse cultures getting into the city has not been touched upon sufficiently. We've been talking about architects, urban planning, urban planners, but we have to, it seems to me, take into consideration the fact that the city of today, the contemporary city, is challenging us from the point of view of taking in diversities. So we need to reconsider our role, our capacity in order to take in the fact that diverse people, diverse cultures, public space, what is it public space today, what does it mean to the diverse people and the migrants in particular who are coming into the city. This dimension, it seems to me, that has to be taken up in a much more precise way and taken into account. Thank you. Maybe, maybe we'll quickly take some reactions to this. I'll just quickly recall what was said. There was an intervention that basically said that we're doing capacity building if we are dealing with water and sanitation and so on and not architecture. There was an intervention that talks about the ego of the architects and the fact that we need to, in a sense, be a little more self-effacing possibly to be effective. An intervention that reminds us about climate change being a very big challenge and I think, again, recalling Alejandro Aravena's presentation. And then the fourth, talking about diversity in public space and how we need to pay a lot more attention. I hope I captured that. Would anyone want to quickly respond to these four interventions or any one of them? Amika? I'll respond really briefly to the disciplinary question, partly just because I'm very, I guess, uncomfortable with any reading of our projects as a way of, I guess, undermining the role of architecture. So we do work in a disciplinary way and the thing which is important about that is helping to understand which of the complex set of problems that you encounter when you start working an area are ones which design can usefully interact with and usefully solve and which ones you need other tactics for. But it's certainly true that in a lot of situations design has a really important and very formative role to play. But I guess it's just about understanding the place that you intersect the problem from a slightly broader perspective. But I also think that's something that your presentation raised also talking about building skills and modes of habitation. I mean, in a way I cheated a bit, I guess. I mean, this is the panel of solutions on below and we come with the integration of the solution from above. But I think one aspect which is really, I think we are very interested in is the scale of the neighborhood. And I think that is, you know, then automatically questions the discipline of the architect who is like things of a, in the building scale. But if you think about a neighborhood, then we suddenly think about the beautification of infrastructure or building trees. And I think, you know, this is, if architecture or in the scale of a neighborhood design is about enabling a community, then we should, you know, we as architects should much more think of infrastructure as our design aspect. And I think very much in a three-dimensional way. Because what you actually showed, you said, with your sewage being installed, the buildings could rise from two level to a four level. I think, you know, we want to achieve density as well. So I think this should be our task much more than anything else. Any other... Please. No, I'd like to get back to that question of the one gentleman who spoke about the ego and all those other things that, you know, we know about the Ayn Rand and the Fountainhead. But I think we've got to understand that architecture is a social art. And it is an art. It is an art, but it's a social art. And I think the tussle that architects face all the time is that in the practice of art, you are autobiographical. You have to be. If you aren't, then you're not an artist. But we don't work like other artists because we're paid by people to do things for them. And those things are in the service of a wider community. And it's that tension that I think makes architecture so interesting. And I agree with you, some architects behave like artists without understanding the fact that it is a social art. But I think we can't escape. That's what I mean when I talk about disciplinary knowledge. We cannot escape from the fact that what we do is we practice a form of art. Don't escape that. Okay, I want to take three more comments. Keep it brief. Say who you are. And then we can go back to the table. Once more. Please. Marcos. Is this working? Yeah. Marcos Jose from Sao Paulo, Brazil. I'd like just to stress from one point that I think has been a common thread throughout the presentations and was pointed out in the very last one, which is how much are we actually open to the other and to listening and to learning in the process of designing. I think this has been a very important one. And then we listen to the word reactive design. I think if we are reactive responsive, if we are in the environment listening to and trying to understand which the opportunities are, and then we are able to actually coexist and try to build it collectively, obviously the amount of work and the capacity of impacting on the environment can only grow if we work with different disciplines, with different people, with different actors. I think this came out very in lots of different colors in all of the presentations. And I think we should question ourselves this is like this. So how much are we willing to listen to actually work with other groups, other people to actually build the collective indeed. Thank you. Over there. Yes, please. Hello. I'm Hassan Zaiter. I'm Lebanese architect and researcher at Sapienza. I have a question about architecture. Why until now architecture is working usually as providers. We know now that 1% of the architect is working for people. So why cannot we cannot, as architects and researchers and also scholars, like support these people and empower them to improve their settlements. Why is this poor people always, they are like, we look to them like we are architects and we are designing for them, not empowering them. The second question is about migrants and camps. Now camps are becoming homes because we have a lot of camps. For example, in my country, we have camps like from 60 or 70 years. Now they are, they were unreality, but now they are reality. So how can researchers empower these people to be integrated in the city as researchers are enough for them or we should like work with them. Why you usually look to them from top to down like improvement, we don't like work with them. Thank you. Sorry. I thought someone was right here. So let's go to this gentleman over there. And that's final comment from the audience. Hello. My name is Reiner Hehl. I'm the collaborator of Joe Nuero for the Table House project. I want to talk about the role of the architect again. And today we realize again that we are just scratching the surface of the challenges we are facing in the world and it's very complex. How can we face that as architects? How can we face the complexity? And I believe that it's really entropic if we constantly extend our knowledge in saying the architect has also to be a social mediator, the architect has also to be an infrastructure planner. And I want to emphasize the fact that we have to collaborate. Markus also talked about that. The intensity that we experienced in the project of the Table House is the fact that we collaborated. We collaborated with Social Business Initiative. We collaborated with a local builder. We collaborated with an engineer. So in a certain way it's not about just extending the discipline of architecture, but creating networks between the discipline of the architect and other disciplines. So what if we instead of just extending the discipline intensify the connections and the collaborations and by at the same time focusing what our discipline can really have as an impact. Okay. I'm afraid we can't take any more questions. So we'll subject these interventions to some discussion. I'd like to of course try and bring back politics into this clearly the redefinition or the redefinition of what the architect's main role is, whether it's collaboration bringing together all of the different elements seems to suggest a different kind of relationship to society. And would anybody want to respond directly to the questions or perhaps take up this theme so we can close the session? Roksana. Okay. So what Rainer was saying, extended more than intensified. I agree in some part, but in the other I think that maybe there's a new discipline that we should look for, that it's not only the architect, but it's a new, I don't know the name, we should maybe call it a new name. Because even though that we try to collaborate and we did collaborate with many actors, with the community, with government, we still as architects had to do a lot of things that surpass our education or what we do, but we really had to do it. And so in the way that we have to take action as I said before and we have to do it, and how do we find new ways of doing that, that we really have to amplify what we do? You know, you mentioned politics and you also mentioned the role of the architect. And I think, and well done Rainer, I agree with you 100%. I think that the problem with architectural practice today is that we operate in a vacuum without any kind of ethical framework to guide our actions. And I'm not sure that one can develop an ethical framework for architectural action that everyone's going to buy into, but I think every architect should start to develop that. I'll give you an example in our practice. We won't design a private house of larger than 150 square meters in area. And we won't do that because we argue there's a housing crisis in the world and that we need to have maximum standards rather than minimum standards. Similarly, we won't work for people, for example, who seek to use our labor only to maximize profit. That is commercial speculators. So in our way, in our small way, we make our own framework and that guides the work we do. And I think more architects need to do that because if we could do that, we would become much more useful in the world that we live in. Thank you, Joe. So we'll have two final words. Joe has already given us one. Julia, yours is next and then we'll close. Oh, no, someone else should speak up for me. But what I just wanted to say is that the aggregate of individuals is often the opposite of community. So that community can be found in a hair salon or in a sewage system or in a coffee bar. And that's what needs to be acknowledged. And so when I make a claim for a kind of it's not broadening the scope of the architect, it's broadening the scope of what constitutes architecture. Because what I think what we have a deficit in is an institutional deficit. So for example, architects have been written out of the delivery of housing in the United Kingdom. We've become by white papers in our government a sort of look and feel practice. And that's, it's almost a call to come back and to shape the institutions that are involved in the delivery of the very things that we're meant to design. And so it's not a call for becoming engineers or social workers. And I'll leave, yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Julia, for those words. I think with that, we'll close an extremely stimulating and engaging discussion. We should stay with what came out of this discussion as we go into the next one, post-lunch, when we talk about solutions from above.