 Well, thank you. Those of you who are here this morning, you know, heard Dr. Glazer sing the city electric when it comes to economics and productivity, that a well-functioning city is a dense and always growing bigger core of skilled entrepreneurs who are spinning out agglomeration economies and basically sort of spawning new work, as Jane Jacobs put it in the economy of cities almost 40 years ago, this notion that innovation and new ideas and new products and growth comes from the sort of serendipitous encounters between two skilled people in a city who add new ideas onto old work and produce the new. The irony of this, of course, is that so much of the work we still do is it happens takes place inside of the office building, you know, these sort of monocultural glass and steel structures that have populated the cores of our cities. Frank Duffy, who I believe is here today, the founder of DGW, explored, you know, the office building at one point and found that their peak utilization rate was 60%. That included the entire surface of the office. And that didn't account for nights or weekends. And so, of course, I found it deeply ironic that the opening montage of Electric City was of sweeping visions of London empty and unproductive. And so, of course, the question is, you know, basically how can we reform the office building? How can we, as Duffy and many others have said for years, for decades, how do we replace the monocultural office with a more permeable space? How do we bring the city into the office and, in a larger sense, how do we basically bring the right people into the right place at the right time? How do we bring the street into the office? Because there's also been a quiet crisis of confidence when it comes to the corporation. We implicitly assume that the rate of innovation is accelerating all the time. This is what Ray Kurzweil and the Singularis would have us think. But in fact, there's a growing body of evidence to show that the opposite is true. Jeffrey West, the physicist who solved the city, quote unquote, two of his collaborators have published a paper with Joseph Tainter who wrote The Collapse of Complex Societies, basically showing that the innovation is slowing down. The team size is growing to decreasing returns. And that basically, that we're seeing return on assets in companies, as measured by John Hagel and Deloitte, has been declining since 1965. That basically, we're seeing a return on assets in companies which are now shrinking in lifespan are now one third of what they were in 1965, which is the era, coincidentally, that we basically introduced the cubicle into corporations. There's a whole argument to be made that basically the office and corporations are making us dumber than the cities in which we inhabit. And so, you can see the sort of total crisis of faith when it comes to designing spatial environments for innovation in the new Facebook headquarters. This is Mark Zuckerberg commissioning Frank Gehry. Basically, they went to Frank Gehry, the world's most famous architect, perhaps, and asked for a big box. That's all they wanted, was one large room with every desk mounted on casters so they could wheel them around because they had completely lost faith on the idea of designing an office environment to enhance creativity. We will let people figure it out on their own. We will let these serendipitous collisions as the mayor of London, so eloquently put it earlier this morning, happen on their own. And so, to me, the question is, is when it comes to designing spaces for innovation, how do we basically make the corporation and make the office more like the city? Or at least this is the question to which many corporations themselves are engaged in. How do we create that permeable space so that basically the bounded mortal corporation can take on these growth agglomeration economies of the city itself? And how do we basically make the border between the two as permeable as that chalk outline? There's an interesting term that comes out of the Mumbai design firm, CRIT, looking at Mumbai that basically cities have these enormous transactive capacities, and these capacities sort of reach their peak when the edges between the city and commercial activities are blurred as on the streets of Mumbai. And so, therefore, to me, the question is, how do we actually design these beyond the simple and formal economy? I would take issue with Kent in arguing that the office of the future is not Starbucks, which is a sort of non-social environment if you're engaged in work, but how do we create environments fourth places, so to speak, where basically community and sociability and learning and sharing ideas is part of doing work itself? And so, being a journalist, I went out looking for examples of this, and the co-working phenomenon is an interesting one. For those of you who don't know co-working, you can basically sort of largely summarize it as spaces in which you work side by side with peers who are not necessarily your colleagues. You're not collecting the same paychecks from the same company, but you may be engaged in the same work, or similar work, or even divergent work, but you have the time and place of your choosing to put your head down and hunker down and do work over a wireless network or engage with other people and learn from them. And of course, this trend is encompassed general assembly and some others. And if you need no further sign that basically co-working is beginning to tip into mainstream, I would point you to the mayor of London's announcement today of London's 50 million pound co-working center they'll be building in the middle of Silicon Roundabout. But you're basically seeing signs of this evolve as corporations are trying to figure out how can we break beyond the sort of corporate barrier and the office barrier. And so, this summer I spent some time in this building called Grid 70 in Grand Rapids. This is an office in the middle of Grand Rapids, a sort of classic lumber town, the center still of America's office manufacturing industry. We're basically six billion dollar companies, all of them quite conservative, none of them in the same industry. One's a shoemaker, one's a furniture maker, one's a healthcare company, have all basically moved to their sort of most innovative employees into the same space so that they may, as the CEO of one company put it, have happy accidents. They could basically try to engineer serendipity. And so, this is a place where basically they're all attempting to learn from each other across various industries and sort of escape this sort of bounded prison of their own organizations. As one of the shoe designers put it, they were so happy to be in the middle of Grand Rapids in the walkable city itself, and not trapped at headquarters, which he referred to as the beige. And an even more interesting example, perhaps the most interesting example of this going on today is Zappos. For those of you who are unfamiliar with it, Zappos is an online retailer. It started famously with shoes and has moved into apparel. Zappos is most famous for its expertise in logistics and particularly customer service. It basically moved to Las Vegas several years ago from San Francisco because it found labor to be too expensive. But recently, the founder of Zappos, who sold out to Amazon and has $400 million to burn, essentially free based on the theories of Dr. Glazer and others, and is basically engaged in moving the company from its suburban headquarters into a new downtown, a new downtown headquarters in the former city hall, and as part of its corporate evolution to help it learn, to help it escape itself, is basically seeding the surrounding areas with startups, with education, with charter schools. What it calls the city as a startup, which we could also perhaps see as a sort of neo-company town, all again in a bid to basically help its employees learn beyond themselves and sort of expand the scope of activities. I don't think, and having visited there very recently last week, I don't think that it will fail in regards of making Zappos a better company. The challenge I think that it faces is, will it make Las Vegas a better place? Will it make it a better city when you start merging the attributes of the city and the corporation? But you know, that's a very localized experiment. We're seeing along with the rise of sites like Air and Bee, of course, which is perhaps the most famous example of delivering space as a service online. This is liquid space. This is a sort of specialist one in office space. There are others. But one of the things that liquid space is doing, I think is interesting, is that it's issuing a passport and visa system to companies, so that basically you can sort of choose who you want to bring into the company to make your office space more permeable, and therefore more open to potential outsiders who you can learn from. And so this to me leads to, I think, some sort of interesting situations. The scholar Harold Bathelt, among others, have talked about local buzz and global pipelines that basically, you know, sort of tacit knowledge is discovered and shared in sort of local scenes and face-to-face encounters, and then shared around the world via various sort of corporate communication channels. And so, you know, for those of us wondering how telepresence and things like that fit into the future of work, I wouldn't be surprised if we basically spend most of our time, or at least many of us in the most creative capacities, engaged in very intense local interactions, and then we spend telepresence to basically communicate with the people back at our office, the sort of, you know, lower productivity, low-yield conversations. And then the final, and sorry about the pink, that should be yellow. I think the final set of technologies that's emerging that could help support this is, you know, sort of the offshoot of what's been called social discovery. There was a whole class of apps that debuted at South by Southwest last year, largely to shrugs and questions of so what. These are apps that basically attempt to take our social networks, our Facebook, our Twitter's, our LinkedIn's, and apply them onto GPS data, basically sort of, you know, attempt to find social serendipity in real time. Most people found this creepy, most people, other people found it to lack sort of value, but it points to the notion of basically creating software that allows us to find in these sort of co-working environments and elsewhere, potential matches, people who we can match up with that we can learn skills from. I could at least see this deployed in corporate context. This is a sort of thing that makes sense in conferences such as this one, and in fact, one of the founders of LinkedIn is doing exactly that. So, you know, this app, Sonar, just as an example, debuted at a panel last year at South by Southwest with the title of engineering serendipity, and that is sort of the question that all of these sort of areas face. Can we do a better job of cities than engineering serendipity? I think we're about to find out. Thank you very much, Greg. Very sorry about the scream, but we wanted to demonstrate the importance of triple redundancy, so we still have two. I think there's one, so from an urban perspective, one question I'm still left with, and it's about the degree to which these new collaborative spaces, you showed the famous image of dot com companies thinking about how they can even make their spaces even more productive, that they turn out to be anti-urban to use a provocative term. And certainly if we take the Silicon Valley box, it is not what we would expect you need a city for. And if you talk to people who are advocating for those large floor plates, they will tell you that it's a massive advantage if you have a horizontal layout. You don't want to go vertical for innovation. Now, how do you reflect on that? Number one, is this a fair statement and a representation of how these people think? And is there something to be said that we also need to acknowledge that there is sort of maybe a ceiling which needs to be recognized with these innovation processes in space? Absolutely. I don't think they're wrong in arguing that basically the largest possible floor plate. I mean, obviously there's some upper limit somewhere. But what they're trying to do is basically put as many people in one place at the same time as they possibly can, and then wait for these sort of fruitful serendipitous encounters to actually happen. In fact, if you talk to the office designers of Facebook, Google, and L, they will tell you they're trying to create collisions, they're trying to create serendipity. Zappos, for example, talks endlessly about serendipitous collisions you tied all together. But there is the whole sort of countertrend to basically the Silicon Valley floor print. I mean, I think it's interesting that Facebook, for example, in their current headquarters, has basically created a mocked up city. They have streets, they are attempting to lure their employees to walk through the same places. I mean, anyone who's read Jonah Lair's Imagine can tell you the stories about Pixar and its bathrooms, which are not necessarily true. But basically we're seeing a countertrend to that, which is companies that are moving them into urban spaces. So one example I think is interesting is the 5M project in downtown San Francisco, where Forest City, one of America's largest developers, is going to build two million square feet. But before they do that, one of the things they're doing to lure companies there is building a co-working space, building an arts incubator, building these sort of fertile buzzing spaces that create an ecosystem to borrow another very trendy phrase, of people and collaborators there that these companies can then situate themselves in like a warm bath of potential future collaborators, potential hires, et cetera. And you see that here in London. This is what campus is, not far from here. Seven floors, with two floors of a co-working space, an incubator, an accelerator, and on the top floor is Google, which is no doubt monitoring the activity below. So there's a question of, you know, basically how many uses can you pack into the same place? That is the sort of mixed use permeability that Duffy and others have talked about for so long. All right, Kent. Well, I was just gonna add to that that many of these co-working facilities are cropping up in major cities. WeWorks in Manhattan, Cambridge Innovation Center, with 450 startups, where the director, Tim Rowe, says, there are only a few spots where he would put this. One, it has to be within a two minute walk of a subway station, and it has to have a whole network of cafes and third places around it. And in fact, it went as far as to say that he didn't know anybody that drove to the office. Everybody rode their bike or took mass transit. So I think in that context, they're very urban. Now again, I'd like to open it up and ask for comments, observations from the audience, if there are any. Please, we have one here, one, please, a microphone. Hi, Klaus Bodum, founding partner of BDSP. I want to catch on a little bit on both mobile, flexible, small unit home, the electrical bike. These are attractive models, but I see in a way there are applications probably more towards the developed world than possibly if you go to Africa, South America, probably parts of Asia. China, yes, because of the electric I've seen in Beijing, they use it a lot, but if you go to India or Vietnam or some other countries, maybe less. I'm quite interested to understand how you see this application really succeeding in countries of such economic position and also cultural disposition to sharing cars or going for electric bikes. So I'm quite curious to see whether the statistic grows because that's where we have a population growth and demographic change. Fraku will respond to that, but as a reminder, this is actually the subject of also the next session. So we'll go exactly into that in a moment, but please, Fraku. Now I just wanted to mention that's something we need to keep in mind, for example, with the electric bikes is that we don't need all the wired infrastructure that we have in the West for this to happen. You could very well have people with solar panels on their houses in remote areas where they can charge up the bike and they would have mobile phones they don't need landlines for all the access. If we think back to Ricky's picture earlier with the person riding his bicycle with the two kids in the box on the back, right? If you make that an electric one and add some independent solar panels to that and a mobile phone, I think you can already start to imagine how much potential is in there, really. And you would be leapfrogging all the cabled infrastructure that we are so used to in the West. So I think there's very much potential in there. John. Yeah, I was just going to say something similar about the importance of if you're trying to build new models, some of the time it's easier to build new models if there aren't extraordinarily powerful interests and organization and lock-in already existing. And obviously mobile phone use in Africa would be the kind of classic example of that potential. So thinking systems seems to be very important to thinking where some of these innovations might get more traction, even if some of the pioneering and experimentation may happen in Amsterdam or in Brighton. Was it? Yeah, please. One and two. Let's take those two more. Is there a microphone already? Yeah, yeah. Please go ahead. Breaks forth about smart working. Actually, I'm Shane Mitchell from Cisco and we've been exploring smart working as we have bravely. Somewhat rather than looking up to the anti-urban thing that you pointed out, I think that as a metropolitan, a broader way, this mantra, you take work to the worker rather than the worker to work. So it is part of a mix of how you can provide options which it forms one option of a modal shift of the way that we go about our daily lives. We no longer need to go to the center of cities. And we see that in action, particularly in the Netherlands where we ran some pilots and that has really gone to scale in places like South Korea, nationally, in France. And in this country, I don't live in London. I consider myself very much in London. I live on the South Coast. And in small towns in this country, we're seeing co-working spaces opening with the purpose that, yes, it provides a different working option. But there are these serendipitous connections happening. And so it doesn't necessarily need the density. It's a different economics, a different use, but just to throw that in, I'm interested in your thoughts on that perspective. Okay, thank you. And one last over here, the microphone, please. Sorry, I need to cut this short out. Sorry, we'll have, could you bring the microphone? Sorry for that, but. I'm Fiona Strelitz from BEDZ-A Responsed User Environments. I'd like to pick up on a similar point to the colleague from Cisco who's just made that. But really to challenge the point you made about how corporations can bring, make efforts to bring the city into the office, to control the corporations seek to exist in confining their culture, controlling their culture and shaping the way that they influence urban development. By releasing control, many, many, many people nations and many people who work in corporations are hardly ever in the building such that utilization figures are much more like 40% rather than 60. And if people can be trusted to engage in cities and in the markets that they're going to be serving and being entrepreneurial with on their own terms, I think we have a very, very different take. Absolutely. And one of the interesting things about that is I think one of the reasons that corporations are showing, I mean, corporations seem the ones I've spoken to at least and this includes AT&T, which is exploring this and Capgemini and some others, you know, consulting firms are natural, they're sort of conflicted. One, they know that basically they will never be able to corral all the talent in any given place and in their field and city, et cetera. So this is one of the reasons they're looking to co-working centers. How do we basically scale the footprinting capabilities of the corporation when we can't have all the people we want in one organization? Because the flip side of that is the United States is after wave, after wave, after layoffs and structural readjustments of the companies, you know, there's estimates that 65 million workers in the United States may basically won't have an office, won't have an employer by 2020. In which case, you know, where will these companies go to find them? So they're basically, you know, sort of expelling people from the office, either they're keeping them on the payroll and then sending them home or sending them out to work somewhere else for a day in an effort to basically reduce their footprints to rationalize their office space. Or, you know, basically they're expelling it from the company altogether. So there's definitely a sort of, you know, corporate sort of bloodletting approach to this, but I think what makes the most successful ones are, you know, of co-working and whatnot, are spaces where in fact you can learn and basically it's the peer group who is there that you are, you know, socializing with. Otherwise, you know, we are living in the George Gilder, you know, mid-1990s vision of, you know, infinite bandwidth of the telecosm. I can work from a silver meadow and then telepresence anywhere, which I still don't think will ever happen. Thank you. We'll have to move on and we'll now come to our last block, looking at innovating communication and collaboration. And Patrick, we'll start with his presentation on smartphones, please.