 Y wrth gwrdd, Ynny'n gwybod. Rwyf wedi bod dweud i ddim yn y cyfrofi ar 5 mwynt i gwestiynau 14 mwynt. Mae dylianio bod Ynny'n ddysgu arweath o'r uchydig, pa chi'n teimlo i'r unig emergedig a Hoell boxer hefyd— ychydig yr ystod ymyr y gallai 4 mwynt. Ynny'n gwybod. Ynny'n gwybod. Mae'n erbyn yn gweithio gyda'n ddweud o aelodau ar y cyfans. Felly rydyn ni'n ffocu ar y cyfansio bwyl, y cyfansiwyr mewn cerddau rhaid ar y cyfansiwyr. Prifenni i chi ddifudio am ysgirio, ac yn ychydig. Felly, mae'n ddweud yw'r paradog. Mae'r rhaglen yn ddiddordeb yn ddaeth. Istanbul is the oldest urban age city, but it's also the youngest in some sense. So we have to be aware that in Istanbul, 1950, there was 1 million inhabitants. Today there are 14, 15, we don't know. So actually in 50 years they have founded a new city for 11, 12, 13 million people. And it is a success story. If you look the urban age indices with density, with criminality, with a question of fossil dependency, actually it's what we are trying to reinvent in our northern European cities. What is a success story? Actually what we find is, I know we'll maybe polarise a little bit the models, a model which you can characterise as a bottom-up community-based informal urbanisation, which is labelled here as get your condo development. The interesting thing is that the result have not been slums, as we do know them from Mumbai or from Sao Paulo. All these settlements have schools, have health care and they succeeded for upgrading strategy. And they created intense multi-mixed structure with an integrated urban manufacturing. And with a low carbon urban structure, it was a highly inclusive urbanisation and what's very important is a resilience structure, which was not heavily infected by the financial crisis. But we have seen there are problems. A key problem we always hear, you can't park your car. And you have to take it very serious when people are arguing like this, you have to find alternatives. And the second question you mentioned, the earthquake problem. So now this argumentation is linked with a second argumentation to adapt the urban structure to the demands of globalisation. But when I understand rightly what Saskia is saying, that the capabilities for handling and enhancing network communication are crucial, there is a complementary structure. We have an interlink between global and local processes. This global networking needs this locally based social capital and this is just what was produced. And now what is this new strategy? The new strategy is a developer driven urbanism with an exclusive urban structure, highly dependent car ownership with a simulated city-ness, you could say, with a fragmented low developed social capital. And actually all those things we want to overcome in the cities of the north. So for me that's a crucial point we are confronted with and we have to find solutions. And how you can reconcile this heritage of this very successful development strategy with the new accession of globalisation, of sustainability and so keeping up and developing social capital. So is there a possibility by a step by step improvement and not to fall back in the old mistakes we had in the north, the tabula rasa, the clearance of the old structure destroying social capital, but really take it serious, the city is made of man and women and not out of stones. So you have to take it serious, the social linkages between the people and try to take the main asset, the social capital and this has to be the basis for development strategies. Thank you. Dieter, thank you for your brevity and indeed your passion. Our second discussant is Henk Obink who is director of the National Spatial Planning, the Ministry of Housing Spatial Planning and the Environment in the Netherlands. Thank you. Thank you, Tony. Well, passionate Dieter, as we know you. I would like to refer on two things. Sorry. If Istanbul is this mobility hub, what does this mean for Europe, for the western, northern parts of Europe? If you look at the issues at stake, it's always this confrontation between climate change and migration, segregation between mobility and quality of life, between the social issues, etc. And the city, every city, we know that through the urban age, but we also know that in practice, maximizes this confrontation. But it's hard for us, even on a national, especially on a national level to handle that. So if cities maximize this confrontation and this confrontation in this mobility situation we are here in Istanbul is maximum for Europe, what can we do with it? Then there's a second level and that's our reaction to these problems. Climate change, we start to innovate. Of course we address it as a problem, but it leads to innovation. But the financial crisis, the political shift, the EU debate on immigration, open borders and religion leads to protectionism. So we have two approaches to different problems of course, but two approaches. And it's so crucial now in these times to try to have the same approach towards this financial crisis, the social problems, the religious tasks, the way we act upon it on climate change. So we have to innovate in that. And Istanbul, I don't know, perhaps they might lead us away. For that we need to accept and exploit more our differences. On a national level in Europe, in the northern Europe, as Dieter said, we tend to level things out. We don't like differences. That leads to protectionism. So we have to overthrow this leveling and focus and exploit differences. City's catalyzed these differences and my last would be Europe is a shrinking continent. A shrinking. If you look at the whole world there's Europe and the rest is growth. Although in the cities there's growth but there's a continent not. Can Istanbul be the valve for Europe culturally but also demographically? And can we as Europe countries position Istanbul as a moving city in the Europe of tomorrow? Thank you Hank. And interesting, introducing the idea of the risk of protectionism across a range of not normally just the financial way, I was talking about the much wider risk of protectionism and I think that's an important warning. Our third discussant is Gerard Frug, another long time friend of the urban age, who is professor of law at Harvard University. I want to spend my four minutes talking about democracy. And of course Turkey is a democracy, so is the United States. That's not the part that interests me. What interests me is this question. To what extent is the future of Istanbul in the hands of the residents and citizens of Istanbul? No one thinks that the future of Istanbul or of New York should solely be in the hands of the residents of the city. But the question is to what extent do they have a voice? This is a question I bring, I'm not an expert about the city and I want to ask four specific questions. One, to what extent is the policy that's been described, the policy of globalization, a policy of the central government and not of the local desire? So professor Cader wants us to think that the collapse of the central and local is okay, that they are actually in sync. What I wonder about is there another side, as he knows much better than I, the national government in Turkey has more than once abolished the local government in Istanbul and appointed an administrator and it said, there must be some desire in the people of Istanbul to have some voice of their own, not the same as the central government. So the question number one would be what is the central local relationship in the city? Two, how do we organize city government? To the extent we have a strong mayor, that makes a big difference. Now Istanbul has an extremely interesting city council made up of the 30, some odd district mayors and other representatives of the localities. This idea of knitting the whole city together from the local district municipalities is an incredibly innovative idea. No other urban aid city has this model. But if the city council is weak, it doesn't matter. If we have a strong mayor and if we have a famously strong mayor in Istanbul like we do in New York, if we have a strong mayor at the organization, the popular organization of the city council, as a voice in the future of the city is thereby weakened. So the second question I bring to Istanbul is to what extent is the organization of the city government itself responsive to the city? The third question is to what extent is city policy being run by public corporations and not by the city government at all? We've already heard some about public corporations in the housing area, but there are actually dozens of public corporations running important services in Istanbul, just as there are in New York and elsewhere around the world. One of the questions certainly in the United States about these public corporations is to what extent are they efforts to avoid democratic accountability? The fourth and final question is the question of privatization. What is the role of the private sector in the development of the city of Istanbul? We've heard something already about public partnerships. When we hear about them, as we did today, it's always an upbeat, very positive, and we really like these things. Now, I like them too. I think they are very productive and positive innovation. On the other hand, they have a dark side, and we also hear more about the dark side. One aspect of the dark side is that the private sector can have too much influence over government officials, more influence than the people of the city. I mean developers and real estate people. The question is, is there a public-private partnership in the sense of private influence over city policy? The strongest version of this, of course, is corruption. Corruption is an example of a public-private partnership, but it's not the usual example of a public-private partnership that people raise. So all four of these things. To what extent is the policy central? To what extent is the policy mayor or not counsel? To what extent is the policy private? Are all questions about democracy in the city? Thank you, Gerald, for raising those four key questions about governance and the relationship between the public and private in the delivery of government.