 Okay. Thank you very much. Bogota is not as large as Mumbai, certainly, but has seven million inhabitants. And it has a very high density, about 220 inhabitants per hectare. I'd like to first say that if we have private property and market as the best way to manage most of society's resources, there is not much we can do about income inequality. But we can do a lot for quality of life equality, especially for children. Quality of life in terms of housing, of health, of access to parks, recreation, music lessons, sports, education. It is realistic to strive for a city where nobody feels inferior or excluded. I'd like to first mention that in the transition from 35% urban to 75% urban population, in Latin American cities, population in Latin American cities grew by more than 1,000%. Population of Indian cities will be, I mean, India now has about 35% urban population, as I understand. Therefore, if the same were to happen, population in Mumbai would be 10 times what it is today in 40 or 50 years. Maybe that will not happen, but at least it will be three times more. But I don't see any reason why it would be very different than what happened in Latin America, but let's say it will be at least three times as much. There are slums in practically all developing country cities. Therefore, these slum problems is not because we have had a bad government or a bad mayor or a bad president. The system of private property of land does not work for the case of land around cities because if it was a matter of a bad government, maybe there would be some cities where the problem would not exist. Clearly, what it does not work is the system of private property of land that is not working anywhere in the world. In Dar es Salaam, you see there are no streets, nothing. It's a very curious case of messiness. Or in Philippines, the Asian type of slums around railroads always. This is in Kenya, in Nairobi. The inputs for housing are land, construction, materials, labor, and finances, which can be finally income loans, government subsidies. As countries get richer, all inputs become more accessible. Construction materials, higher salaries, higher finances, but land does not increase. Land is as inaccessible as at $8,000 income per capita and it is at $300,000 per capita because private property does not work and free markets do not work in the case of land around developing country cities. Right supply increases when prices go back down. This is the essence of the market of capitalism. This does not happen in the case of land for housing. We can increase prices all we want and the supply of land which is accessible to utilities, to jobs, to schools does not increase. Furthermore, I don't understand why we still continue to adopt private property as the means to manage most land around the jungle. And very soon, land is inaccessible to people. Even though land was free 10 years before, 10 years later, it's totally inaccessible to people. Even when you find some oil, for example, or whatever. This is just pictures of Colombian cities all over the place and then you can see the land. The owner of this land is very happy about this illegal development because then the government has to bring water and roads and buses and then this land goes up very much in price. It's very likely that the owner himself gave this half free to these people so he would force government to bring utilities there. It really happens very often. In Bogota, this is the surroundings of Bogota where about half the city initially started as illegal. Bogota is very high up in the mountains, about 2,600, but these slums are even much higher up. Illegality, of course, leaves poor public spaces, inadequate locations, no parks. Adjacent to Bogota, there are tens of thousands of hectares of flat land but the poor continue to be forced to illegal neighborhoods because the land is private and if people have higher incomes of lower interest rates or whatever, or higher government subsidies then whatever we gain from subsidies or from higher income then land prices go up and you lose whatever you have gained elsewhere. So you can never catch up. It's like the dog, the rabbit and the dog races. It doesn't matter how fast the dog races, it will never catch the rabbit. So this is the new slums growing up. This was a severe failure of the Colombian state that half of Colombian cities grew out initially as slums in some more and some less. My respectful suggestion is in order to avoid the same mistake Indian government should acquire most of the rural land around its cities or else the same thing will happen and Mumbai will be two or three or four times as big and the problems will only get bigger as architect Charles Correa was mentioning before that this is not going to be solved if we continue to do the same. We have to do therefore as everywhere two things. One slum improvement makes slums legal, supply them with water, sewage, schools, parks, public transport, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure but also we should do something to avoid the city from continuing to growing in slums. What is it that we are going to be doing? One thing is to solve what they exist but then what to do so that they don't grow in the future. We have legalized in Colombia traditionally slums. This is more or less in the process of improvement now. I mean as they are so freely so almost legal so they really have streets and then we put old services and then becomes the legal city, the normal city like this. We improved a lot like this and then with shops and the normal city in the working. Colombia has a very, Colombia utilities have a very high cross subsidies after income people may pay up to 10 times more for the same water as the poor people and this is how about 100% of homes in Bogotá have running water and electricity practically 100% are connected through sewage systems, more than 90% have drainage system, nearly 90% have pipe gas through cross subsidy system. Beyond making low income neighborhoods legal and providing them utilities I would like to emphasize on something different. Measures can be taken to truly create inclusion, a sense of belonging and even of pride, respect for human dignity. Small public works with high community participation can strengthen community organization and create self-esteem but we have to work on pedestrian infrastructure. I mean we cannot just simply put roads through these slums or through poor neighborhoods because these are for cars. We have to make infrastructure for people, sidewalks, parks, schools, libraries, infrastructure for people. So this is the type of thing. We made hundreds of these things, communities themselves proposed them, designed them and go in contracts with them to be built. Small pedestrian streets like this or sidewalks, stairways such as this. But I'd like to emphasize that the real conflict for space and funds in cities between cars infrastructure, the real conflict is between cars infrastructure and social infrastructure such as schools, libraries, hospitals and parks. If we really want to solve the problems of the poor we have to make a very crucial political decision and it's somehow decided that we are going to make more and more and more and more highways every time we have a traffic jam because there is a huge conflict for space and for funds. If we decide that every time we have a traffic jam we are going to make bigger highways it will never be possible to solve the needs of the poor in poor cities. Like temples, quality buildings are symbols which create values such as churches wearing medieval towns, children's nurseries, schools, libraries. This is for example in a very poor neighborhood top quality school with the best architecture and conditions. Or this one here and you can also see the mass transport here another top quality school in the border of the city very, very high up in the mountains. Schools like this in the poorest neighborhoods here even a pedestrian street only. In the poorest neighborhood and then community centers indoor swimming pools, schools. Here we made this library, great library then this was very poor around here then this attracted a little bit higher income developments even shopping areas and of course this whole area. Dispensing free food can help the poor but it does not create equality and self-esteem. Good. Architecture for people not for motor cars can create equality and self-esteem and I'm not an architect I must say. This is a picture of lack of democracy. Clearly in this society car owners are more important than pedestrians. This is a picture under development of lack of respect for human dignity. This is in Nairobi. Clearly the road is well paid but the pedestrian spaces are just mud. Again in Dar es Salaam people do not exist except if they are car owners even children, even school children. Public pedestrian space is a symbol of respect for human dignity. So if we are going to improve so long we have to make investments in pedestrian quality pedestrian spaces. In low income communities where people do not have cars quality pedestrian infrastructure creates inclusion and equality. This is through some of the poorest areas in Bogota we made a 23 kilometer pedestrian street. Very high quality even underground cables and the like. In some areas there was no city yet and then this was land bought by government for housing projects. The artery for development was the pedestrian street. This is an interesting project see underground cables pedestrian space bicycle way and the cars in the mud. It's different values I mean. The new city begins to grow around the pedestrian street and around a car street. See normally this is the typical illegal development in the process of advancing and legalizing. Normally the car payment will have been done first. This we did first. First for pedestrian bicycles after for payments for the cars. Different values are created. Respect for humans. Children going to school. The bicycle shops open next to it. See the lady you see again the car in the mud the pedestrian street next to it. Children going to all this is a different concept. I think we should have a network of hundreds of kilometers of pedestrian streets. How why should sidewalks be as wide as you can make them then in a thing we made infrastructure for pedestrian next to poor neighborhoods for to enjoy them the waterfront. To go out to the countryside in pedestrian street. Next to canals all next to drainage canal should be pedestrian spaces. What you can do with a drainage canal and some pedestrian infrastructure a protected bicycle ways not cute architectural feature in the city. It is a right unless one thinks that only motor vehicle owners have a right to save mobility. Even the poorest have a bicycle. A protected bicycle was a symbol that shows that a citizen at $30 bicycle is as important and one on a $30,000 car. So now from almost 0% in seven years. Now has 5% of its population using bicycles every day. They are saving one and a half monthly minimum wage every year. Infancy bridges for bicycles. Large roads are necessary but they must have quality pedestrian infrastructure next to them. Next to poor neighborhoods if we are going to build them but make nice pedestrian spaces next to these neighborhoods. Public pedestrian space is not a luxury. It is as necessary as hospitals or roads. In the future low income citizens will have access to most goods having income citizens have today computers or mobile phones. Access to green spaces will be a crucial source of inequality or equality. If we really create parks such as central parks and things like this. Parks and plazas are as necessary again as road or hospital. This we demolish downtown with a huge social program. 23 hectares to create a park in the middle of some downtown area. Again space for children, space for cars. The same picture. Parks in the poor neighborhoods. Parks are important again even in the poorest neighborhoods. Artificial turf, soccer fields. Large parks in the middle of the poorest areas. And we buy even land for the future. Even if we don't have money to make the park yet. And now to finish. The idea again is not just to solve this long problem but to avoid them. So I think we have to buy land in advance next to it. So national government gives $4500 subsidy for $1500 houses. We created an agency which buys land next to the city. Either voluntarily or through eminent domain at rural prices. But it's private developers who build the houses but they have only two years to develop these to build the houses and their maximum price of $15000. This is the type of developments with lots of parks. This is the type of slums that were there before and this is the new type of development. With a lot of infrastructure. Pedestrian, this is the type of houses. 40 square meter houses for $15000 and they can add up another 20 meter. And we get very high densities. About 340 inhabitants per hectare. Sidewalks. Some of them are with higher densities like this. And this is the land. This is the land next to Bogota. And as rural land. You see the city, right there. This land should not be privately owned. Although it's outside the urban area this land is adjacent to it. With good public transport this land is only 25 minutes from downtown. This land around developing country cities and even land which seems very rural in Mumbai today should be publicly owned. I know for example of some Latin American investors which have a lot of land around Indian cities. I think it's very absurd that this is becoming and speculating feature because this is the main obstacle to solving the needs for housing with good quality public spaces and good planning. So I really would suggest very respectfully that the Indian state at any level which is relevant should acquire all or most of the land the rural land around the cities because it's very likely that the cities will grow much farther than what you imagine today. With good public transport all of this land can be accessible anywhere in the city. Thank you. Thank you very much Enrique. You always inspire us and challenge us and we look forward to more conversation.