 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 mega cities. The communion character of institutions tends to extract value from places in which the institutions are established, rather than the regime which is installed, which controls the urban agglomeration as a whole, where it's established, which exerts 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 think 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 a reformulation of economic power, so that power is divorced, if you like, from questions of civic domination. And the question is, what is it that we poor, poor us as urban designers and planners can do about this? My colleague, Harry Cobb, with whom I've talked about her for a minute, in the past has always said to me, we can't do anything about it. We are not the engineers of sort of the less, 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 colleague, a debate that's conducted in the past. I think we can do something about it. And the hypocriticals that we can take 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. They just got larger and simpler, bigger and cruder. 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 lighting, for instance, about the revamping of a large transport center called Case Cross, in which a very large mega project did absolute violence to the neighborhood in which it was set. It's something that came up when we traveled to Shanghai, and our designer colleagues in Shanghai described the violence that's being done behind the area of Bund in Shanghai by very large-scale projects which have signified what was a very complex environment. The question that's involved here is how Ole Missions and Women 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 be something clear than actually to address how HEPA properties are recommended to us through the complexities on the ground. So what has to be done about this? I think that one way to take the HEPA credit code is to use complexity as a measure of quality, which may seem a rather vacuous formula to you. It means, in particular, that we use street gray as a primary measure of complexity in cities. Whenever we think about renewing, about building, the complexity of street gray becomes our first point of reference. This is an issue that our colleague, Amika Penelosa, has put into practice, as I described to us tomorrow, in trying to remade the streets of Bogota as the pedestrian sites. They're more complicated than the streets he has existed before. The grayness has become richer and more complex. And so I would argue to you 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 grayness. The second way we might observe the HEPA credit codes do no harm, deals with another project, a problem that we, as designers and planners, have encountered as this mobile family and their early age groups around the world. And 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. Often, when we try to make a project very precise, particularly if it's a very large project, we try to define in advance the 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 very inadequate words to characterize the language, 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 trade on the market if you didn't know what a right is in the state investment trust. 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 when we began, at the very beginning, our travels in New York to look at the difficulties of the downtown New York financial district in trying to adapt itself to become a residential center rather than a financial center. Again, when we were in Shanghai, we heard from our colleagues in Shanghai a lot of anger about the fact that by the time Shanghai had moved from being a manufacturing to a service economy city, buildings that had been put up to serve that immediate world of manufacturing proved very difficult to retrofit or to adapt to the world of services. So I would say that my second version of the Hedocratic oath leads to what might seem to you to be an odd conclusion that in order to do no harm, we should not fit form and function perfectly. That is, we want to seek for forms which are ubiquitous whose empty realities mean that change can occur in a physical fact. The final way in which I think we can become good hypocrites has to do with issues of public space. And here for me as your own father, I was very struck by the discussions that I and my colleagues have in both Johannesburg and Mexico City. What they told us was that basically our thinking about public space applies 20th century models to a 21st century problem. I was particularly moved by this by talking to planners in Johannesburg who had emerged from a long period of racial and ethnic segregation to face the problem of how do they get their city. And the challenge that they offered to us was that we needed to think more about the edges of public space and less about its centers. That we needed to think about borders, live edges between different economic as with different racial groups rather than looking into the centers of community. I was very moved that the chief woman was another chief plunder of Soweto sent to me. I don't want to look inward anymore. I want to look at the edge and see what's beyond Soweto. There's a terrific challenge. It is by looking outward that we give up some of the mindset that's involved in centralization, which is looking to those parts of public space in which identity seems fixed or coalesced. The center of community, particularly local community, is a place where people who are like each other tend to be masked together to see each other, to recognize each other as members of the center of community. While the border condition is one where you lose that kind of definition. But what we were being pressed to do by our colleagues was to try to imagine a condition in which we put resources and thought about the public realm lying at that borderline where identity is lost. I was very moved yesterday when Charles Correa gave an example in mobile of the kind of discussions that we had in Johannesburg in Mexico City. He described something very simple, which is people of two different castes sitting down side by side in a bus transport. People who normally wouldn't have been in each other's presence. If you were an accurate, if I'm not accurate, reporting to you said that they didn't talk, but they were with you. It's that kind of propensity which I think in urban design we need to search for. It means a profound change in mindset words like community become less important than words like recognition. It's a profound mindset. It means, however, that we might begin to deal with the ultimate problem of inequality in cities, which is that as it proceeded so far, inequality tends to produce a kind of economic, if not racial, apartheid. And designers can do something about that. We can do it by putting resources that we design schools, health clinics, shopping malls, not in the center of places, but at the end. We can't erase the inequality, but we can counter that against it. So my third rule, the third version of the Hippocratic rule is simply that contact matters more than identity. So these are some thoughts I have as somebody involved in the practice of urban planning and urban design about how, by observing these three rules, these three Hippocratic rules, we might at least sensitize ourselves to the fact that modern city, localized city, tends increasingly to forms of inequality which segregate, which separate, and which rendered, as the word that was used this morning, which rendered massive people invisible to those who have power. Correspondingly, those who have power are not taking responsibility for the conditions of the city as a whole. That is the problem of capitalist inequality today. We can't solve this, but by becoming sensitive, we can counter veil against it a little, and certainly, we can do no harm. Thank you very much. We count on you, Richard, as one of those thoughtful, designed people. And Lee, this may sound radical, you are already. I wish more architects and designers talked about the need to understand inequality and the need to understand and be comfortable talking about race and talking about ethnicity and difference, because those are often important variables that are overlooked and ultimately drive some of the very anti-poor development that we see.