 And now for something completely different, perhaps. There's been a lot of talk about technology in the city. It seems to me that some of the most interesting use of technology in the city is what citizens are actually doing. Not actually infrastructure plays, large IT corporations, but a completely different kind of use of technology. And that's what I'll talk about today. I work at this place Fabrica, a research center in Italy, but I've been there for weeks. I'm actually going to talk about my previous work a bit in Helsinki and Finland. I can get this to work. There we go, technology. And I'm going to start, because I'm English, I'm comfortable talking about failure. So I'm going to start with three failures right away. The cloud that I worked on with Carla Ratty, who spoke earlier today, a massive responsive structure designed for the Olympic Stadium for this year's Olympics. It came second to Anishka Paw's sculpture, essentially. So total failure, in a sense. But it was interesting in that it was a giant smart meter for London, really, a cloud which would reflect what London was doing in real time. Didn't work. Secondly, Barangaroo isn't really a failure as such. I worked at Arup, I worked with Richard Rogers' firm, Rogers Stoke Harbor, Aspects and so on, worked on the ICT side of that, the smart city side, if you like. As Richard and others will know, it's incredibly hard to build a sustainable, world-class development. You spend most of your time convincing developers in the city that they really want to do that in the first place. So it's really not a failure, in a sense, that the jury's out, you might say. Incredibly difficult to get things done there. Finally, Sydney Metro, probably my most spectacular failure, in that it was canceled by politicians when there's a change of government after about 700 million Australian dollars have been spent on it, which hasn't gone anywhere. But this was a real-time visualization inside train stations. I could go on with a litany of failures like this. I do also have some successful projects, I should point out. I won't talk about those. What I'm interested in is why is it so difficult to get these things done? A bit like with the earlier panel, when it seems so obvious that we should move towards a certain kind of city, the kind of city we probably all have in mind in our heads, it's still incredibly hard to make it happen. I'd argue, in a way, it's not because we don't have the ideas or the technology. We have all of the technology we need. We know what wind turbines are. We know what the business model for them is. We look at Germany and Denmark. We can't get them done. So here in the UK, or Finland, where I was, which was the starting point for the project. And I'd argue, actually, that's because we have a crisis of decision-making. And in Finland, I worked for Citro, which is a sovereign wealth fund in an innovation agency. We're using design to understand how we can make better decisions. How do we redesign decision-making itself? In the context of probably the biggest crisis that our institutions have faced, probably since they were invented two, 300 years ago. So this is the UK riots last year, a severe breakdown in the interface between governance and citizens for numerous reasons, some of which are unclear still. You see the same thing around the Occupy movement. You see an emergent bottom-up process, a protest, essentially. This is Occupy Rome, which kicked off in a way that things do in Rome. It wasn't always like this, of course. It organizes very quickly. Where it begins to stumble is when it comes to stating a clear set of objectives about sustainable long-term decision-making. So people can now organize very effectively, very rapidly. But when it comes to, say, replacing the dictator that the Arab Spring takes down, that's where the Arab Spring gets a bit of a wintry, if you like. We don't know what to replace it with yet. What is the sustainable long-term decision-making structure that replaces it? It seems like it's not the emergent bottom-up processes that can do that, although they can destabilize the system in the first place. They're often in very useful ways. So we thought that this is Athens. Again, you could go on with these images of institutional decision-making breaking down at the moment. You could look at the Eurozone crisis, for instance. The culture of public decision-making itself might be the biggest design challenge we have. Not actually the buildings, the infrastructure, the renewable energy technology, but the way that we make decisions about it. My former boss at Citra put it like this. We have 18th-century institutions facing 21st-century problems. As was pointed out earlier, we've never had to deal with globalization, climate change, aging populations, fiscal crises, energy issues all simultaneously. And we're using the toolkit that we made up post-enlightenment, essentially. That's where municipalities and a democratized model of government comes from. If we want a different outcome, can we really continue to use the same tools? So I'll just illustrate this by showing an example from Helsinki, which is, as you probably know, a fairly well-run city in many ways. This is a scape sculpture. The word Helsinki there was commissioned by the city to be skated upon by skateboarders, in the words Helsinki, in a kind of a subterranean highline kind of thing. Turns out they didn't really consult the residents who live either side of that because they started complaining about the skateboarders late at night, the noise that they made. So what happened was the city council then sent out the public works to pump to dig a trench around the sculpture, which is what you can see in the foreground there. So the city council was vandalizing its own project quite radically. Then there were complaints about the complaints. So then the city council sent out the same guys they sent out a week before to fill in the trench that they just dug, which is that's what that short video is. I happened to be there when this was going on. So this is what I mean by this crisis of decision-making now. How do city governments take these kinds of decisions? How many complaints is enough before you send out the bulldozer? And then how many complaints is enough before you withdraw the bulldozer and send out the asphalt guys? We have absolutely no idea how to govern in this situation when citizens again can complain more effectively and rapidly than they have and bring things to public attention very, very quickly. It's very difficult for politicians to respond sensibly in any way, actually. To counterpoint that in Helsinki, I'll show you this, which is called Restaurant Day, or Ravintelapiva in Finnish. That's a woman lowering a bacon and egg muffin from her apartment in a first floor window via a basket. She put five euros in the basket and send that back up and she gives you a bacon and egg muffin in return. This was part of a city-wide street food festival organized by citizens themselves in response to the city's regulations about opening up street food being too restrictive. So rather than bang their head against bureaucracy for two years to try and change the regulations, a Facebook group emerged by two or three people rapidly organizing this thing called Restaurant Day, saying let's all do it together simultaneously. The city won't be able to react. 40, 50 pop-ups occurred that day. Everything from this bacon and egg muffin, which is very hard to get in Helsinki by the way, through to these empanadas. This is an Argentinian person lowering empanadas from her window. That's my son about to get hit on the head. And it's this incredible thing. Suddenly all these people start emerging in Helsinki, like Argentinians, you didn't know were there making amazing food that you can't get normally. The city had no response to this. This is effectively a legal behavior, I'm showing you now, formally, in terms of the law in Helsinki. You can't make food in your apartment and sell it out of your window. This is a Thai soup kitchen in a park, exactly the same thing. It's an utterly joyous festival. So the city had no option just to let it go. They couldn't really, there's no one to arrest actually. They could have arrested the entire city, I suppose, but there's no organization there. There's just a set of instructions and you can't arrest a set of instructions. It's like code or smoke, you just can't pin it down. It completely changed the fabric of the city. So I describe this as this active citizens idea. This is quite fundamentally changing the way that we know cities can begin to work. But it's very bottom up and emergent. So we started a project called Brick Starter, which is a play on words for Kickstarter, the crowdfunding platform. And I sketched this in a couple of days, so be kind on the design, please. But it's a prospective design for a city led service, if you like, a 21st century social service, if you think of it that way. What if you took social media and chucked it at government but did it properly? Not government trying to do social media, but do it with someone that knows how to design social media, which most governments don't. That would be a crowdfunding platform that would enable people to suggest ideas of things they wanted to get done in their neighborhood and then enable them using the tools that they have to hand now to fund and share the process of getting this done. So all of these things are potential projects in real spaces in Helsinki, but the whole thing is fake. What you're looking at is realistic enough to generate a meaningful conversation with the city, which is what we did. If you like, we were a broker between the citizens and the city government and said, what if this thing existed? How would it change your process and culture of government? So take a project like this that someone has suggested for this space, which is an Alvar Alto designed entrance to an underground car park. And what if someone was able to suggest that they walk past it every day and think, wouldn't that make a great co-working space or something? How can you invest in this project? What do you think about this project? If you're an architect, would you like to donate your time to this project? When is the next meeting for it? All of these things are off the shelf tools. It's very rapid and easy to assemble now. And we did this to flush out the conversation with government, not to make it, but to say, how does this change the way you do governance? Because actually social media isn't any, it's not democratic in any way necessarily. Crowdfunding is not a democratic process, right? It will be gamed in the same way that most of these systems are. If I happen to have a million euros, I could drop this on the project and it would stand more chance of it happening. That's not a democratic process. So how does that change? And how do you then play a voting against each other? If you have project backers that are real citizens, how does the mayor or the councillor appear in that? Are they at the bottom of the list or the top of the list? Is it a dialogic relationship where they express their opinion or is it a much more formal situation? This is all quite radical in Helsinki which is quite a formal institutional culture, I have to say. This is key. How do you share the details of getting it done? As you know, most urban interventions are done by activists and they leave the end result, but no trace. So what do you, what permits did you have to get and how? This is something the web does instinctively, but governments aren't taking advantage of it yet. And so on and so on. So I guess to sum up, what we were trying to do is turn this activism into activity, to turn everyday activism into everyday activity, to look at the idea of active citizens and see the potential in citizens engaging with their city fabric as they are doing all over the world now, but also active government too. It needs this institutional response to change and be part of that. That's the kind of activity, as with the restaurant though, that leads to widespread behavior change across the city and it's really about a 21st century social contract, the relationship between city and government. And in that sense, it's about what the city is for, who the city is for, and how we decide that. That would be a smart city I think. Thank you.