 One of the things that, and I can say this, architects are not so good at, nor are big donors also not so good at perhaps, excuse me, anyone I'm insulting, but stewardship, maintenance, upkeep, how do large scale projects like the High Line and how do designers and planners and policy people think about projects that need to last a long time, how are they maintained? Donors like to give big hunks of money and build a building, but somebody has to take care of it over the long term. So I wonder if our panelists and also our organizers would like to weigh in on the on the problem of how do you design time into your projects and to your policies and organizations. Is this on? Can you hear me? One of the clear issues with any of these projects, these public projects that are where funding is raised privately, is that it's relatively easy to raise capital money where people can put their name on something and you get larger larger gifts that way, especially if the project is a high-profile project. Once the project is built and you've created the value for the neighborhood around it and you've created the value for the city, it's virtually impossible for you to claw back some of that money for longer term maintenance. So for us, we are really just trying to diversify the ways that we're bringing in money, whether it's big donors, revenue producing events on the High Line, revenue producing restaurants underneath the High Line. To be honest, it's a we're throwing everything we can at the problem. But the discussion of value capture is one that should be right at the beginning of the project. How is this thing going to survive long term without public funding? I would add, I mean I think that, you know, ourselves and our consultants who we work with very closely on our projects, you know, try very hard at the beginning to talk to whether it's cities or owners or whoever it is that our clients are about starting an endowment like early on and actually raising funding, why you're doing capital campaign to also be doing funding for maintenance and operations and programming, etc. And a lot of times, I mean, friends is doing all three of those things, but sometimes, you know, one entity doesn't have that capacity. So for Nicolette Mall, for example, the Downtown Council is doing all the programming. They established another group that's going to do the maintenance and then there's another group that's kind of doing some of the operations. So they kind of pulled sources from different places to try and cover the project. But I think we, a lot of times, you know, there are even now maintenance and operations consultants and manuals that kind of help establish budgets for projects working with designers so that early on you can kind of understand what this is going to take. Everyone wants something that they say is no maintenance. There's no such thing as no maintenance public space, no maintenance anything, but especially public space. And so we try to do things that are low maintenance or if it really is a key part of the design and a feature that brings people back, then you just have to be upfront about it. Well, I guess I'd like to thank the friends of the High Line from the standard point of view because your programming is what keeps the standard hip and alive. The more you do, the more you maintain the better off they are. You know, they try to keep up, they change their artwork out on the plaza. It originally, I think the lower six floors opened in 2009. They were still working upstairs. And I think we've been working, we're still working there. We keep changing things because, you know, as a hotel, it has to, its reputation depends on its staying current. And the fact that you guys are maintaining that and it's, the landscaping is unbelievable. When it first went in, these little busy bushes, now it's just lush and it's so popular that you got to close it every once in a while. Anyway, that's what public private maintenance can give back. I think the city will try to raise your taxes for them somehow. Be careful. Yeah, well, we got to move because our rents are going up. Getting very expensive. The price of fame. And in that regard, I think that's perhaps the thorniest question for a place like the High Line, is the transformation of a neighborhood. It's an arts district, it's an absolute incredible destination. And one of the kind of perennial questions for public private partnerships in a place like New York where real estate is, is it's kind of double headed, loved and hated sort of industry. And this may go beyond the High Line, but how do you public private partnerships or how in your other work, how do you really define giving back? How do you really define the public return? And so it's not just a dollar number, but how do you define the publicness, the public benefit, public services, and not only how do you define them, but how can we study them? How can we measure them? I wonder if you have any experience in that kind of give back. I actually sit on the board of the Landscape Architecture Foundation, LAF, and they actually have a, it's called Landscape Performance Series that they've been working on. You can go to their websites. They're actually trying to establish metrics for those exact things. It's hard because you know, there are ways you can establish metrics, for example, of, you know, what, what a tree can sort of give back in terms of clean air, things like this, right? But it's actually harder for things that are about quality of life improvements, about attracting new people to a city, about giving a city a competitive edge, those types of things. But they're, they're starting to look at ways to begin to establish metrics to help argue for these things. Because unfortunately, you know, it's hard to argue for something if it's just a, if it's a feeling, if it's a, you know, something like that, if it's qualitative. So, and that's such, that's such an important part. I actually, James is here, but you said to me at one point that, you know, what was the biggest difference between why Boston Big Dig sort of wasn't as successful as the High Line, and you said design. And so the qualitative part of that is also a huge part of what makes it, you know, successful. If we're working with many, many projects throughout the country who are trying to replicate the High Line, and I talked about the main piece that really got the High Line movement over the hump was the economic analysis. And I think what we're seeing now is that over the last 30 years, we've all been fighting to bring people back into the cities and that fight is, is really one. People are back in the cities and now we're starting to think about how are we managing the populations that are coming back into the city. So all of these projects that we talked to, we are convinced are going to be economic successes. That story is sort of done. So what are the other metrics that should be used to ensure that in 20 years, the narratives is the right narrative. Is it about the environment? Is it about social impact? How are these projects going to be seen in the long run and developing those metrics is actually really important to the success of these projects and to the future of the new projects, which are, you know, the High Line, yes, it's a success, but there are projects that aren't going forward because of our success because there are certain neighborhoods or certain cities that are concerned about the changes that are happening in West Chelsea. Actually, I have sort of interesting the qualitative benefits is really interesting. You know, we do a lot of cultural buildings, museums, which, you know, when you do a museum or you renovate one, you know, the economic return is basically, yeah, the attendance goes up a lot. But that's not what you're giving back. You know, you're, you're, you're providing culture for a community to visit a place together, as opposed to sitting home and, you know, sitting in front of your widescreen TV, and not mingling with other people, people do like to be with other people. And it's a place that you can do that. And that's what we try to encourage. So it is qualitative. In that respect, anyway, I'd like to open up to the floor. People have questions. James, before you answer that, I will repeat the question, because I'm not sure everyone heard. James asked to start with a that New York City is capturing more of the value than the high line itself, which I take it to be a problem. For them, I mean, it's not New York City, of course. And then in the complexity of PPPs, 3P projects, how can the public service side of that be more emphatic and more involved or more laid out? Good enough translation? What's a good role for a public spokesperson in the 3P structure? Equality education. Seriously, you know, I've been working like a many, many years ago. I worked for it was DGS at the time. Now it's DDC, which is a city agency that's involved in anything where there's public money. And I did a library in a fire station and a homeless services building. And way back then, the people that I worked with who were at DDC were classic bureaucrats. They didn't want to hear what you had to say. They just wanted you to put it up effectively on time and on budget. Design didn't factor into it. Today, people like me are in these positions at DDC. They've chosen that path so I can talk to them and they see the value of good design. And it works. They are well educated, not being an elitist. They're well aware, personally committed in a way that is a joy to work with. Not all, but I've noticed there's quite a few of them because they care. They grew up to generation my age, who grew up with those sort of values. And that is a big difference. That makes P3 work a lot better. Yeah, I would say leadership and vision. I mean, I think that, you know, having, I mean, the high line is such a the Bloomberg administration and Adrian Benipi and Amanda Burden and all of these people, I mean, they were not only were they passionate about it in a way where they were looking at 100 bench mockups and saying, oh, are you sure that this and shouldn't be this inch and that inch? But, you know, just the leadership and vision from the top and being able because, you know, 12 years might seem like a long time to work on a project. But the fact that it was slated for demolition and is now seen as an icon in a part of New York City, that's a really short time for that to happen. And, you know, most of that had to do with not only friends kind of advocacy and grassroots and being able to kind of build consensus in the larger community, but also the partnership and the leadership of the city to make sure that it could sort of work because when we started the project, I mean, I was spent, I don't know, years at City Hall, they didn't even know how to classify it. They were like, is it a building? Is it a park? Is it an overpass? Is it all? Is it none? I can't check the box. I don't know what to do. So we had to actually establish a framework for what it was going to be. And that could have easily, like, buried the project, if there wasn't leadership and vision there to move it through. Yeah, the thing I'd say is that, especially in New York, you have a lot of very, very smart, motivated people working in the public sector and giving them the opportunity to be involved in a project like the Highline is a super opportunity for a lot of these people. So you end up with more entrepreneurial public side, public sector folks that aren't out doing IPOs, but they're doing their entrepreneurialism within the construct of the agencies. And having those people assigned to your project is a huge benefit. If you can find them and you can ask for them, you can push things around, especially if you as an entity like friends is raising the bulk of the money, you can kind of pick and choose the people at the city that you want to work with. Going back to what Lisa said, 12 years isn't a long time when you're talking about a project, but it's a fantastically long time when you're talking about a mayor's term and the type of people that are in office during a mayor's term. Bloomberg had people that could be doing anything, anywhere else in the world, doing these jobs. And it was one of the main reasons the Highline was successful. It was a moment in time. Whether that can be replicated, who knows, but you certainly take advantage of it when you see it. Yes, please. So the question is, what does it take on the low line? Which I assume, you know, I like the project. I know folks at the project. So I say nothing but positive things. I think that they're, it's a challenging project, selling people on an underground park, but I think that they've done enough work to convince people that this is actually going to be a very interesting and unique space, unique to New York. I think some of the challenges that they're going to come against are negotiations with the developers that are directly adjacent to the site and what the developers might see that space being used for versus what their, you know, the low line's vision for that space is. I wish them all the success in the world. And I think they're making great strides. I want to just add one point, James, you reminded me of a particular thing about Body Park City, which I have to admit sticks in my craw, perhaps dangerously, was the affordable housing fund, which I think to put it bluntly was rated or not put to work. So this is a lesson about public-private partnerships and the deals and the structuring and the regulation and the transparency that is, you know, it's not the glorious High Line, although Badder Park City has incredibly global scale and market value, but the, in a place like New York with its housing issues with density issues and the foresight to say, okay, Body Park City will have an affordable housing component off-site, but the rules weren't right or something or somebody didn't cooperate, et cetera. And I don't actually know the numbers, so I may be, you know, off here, but that is just in general a lesson to the necessity of oversight and true honesty and transparency and cooperation among the various players. So perhaps the High Line is the most unusual, but therefore setting a high bar. So I just wanted to add that as a cautionary tale a little bit to the difficulty of the public-private structure and the PPP arrangements. I think there were some hands. I'm sorry. Yeah, go ahead. We pay them both. They'll say that. So the question is professional territory and how the project gets represented. Yeah, fair enough. I actually, whenever I give a lecture on any of the projects, I, all of our projects are large teams and I always credit that. Today I was just giving a few highlights. I didn't mention any consultants. I was going to talk about that if there were design questions, but Field Operations was the project lead, but Dillersk video and Renfro was an important, significant collaborator, partner of ours. We've been working together for over 12 years and you know, this project is one that the original brief actually kind of challenged the teams to come up with a team that would be as unique as the High Line itself. And so when we put together the team, you know, we really thought about how could we think about putting together a team that weren't necessarily so fit in their professional disciplines. And we specifically asked, you know, Liz and Rick to join at the time because they were kind of playing with performance and art. And you know, at that time actually not even so much in architecture. And they were interested in us because we were also not your sort of typical landscape architect. So I think it's very hard to like define, you know, the roles because it was so much of a team collaboration. And Pete Uldoff also was like an incredible team member and the engineers and everyone. So I think most of our large scale public projects are teams of over 16, 17 consultants. And we actually do very much try to make that known. But so hopefully that help answers the question. I can't speak on their behalf. One last question, Claire. We've looked at that a variety of times just to give some background. The Highline, when we started looking at advocating for a bid, the Highline had already opened. And so the part was existing. People were on the part. There was a lot of support of it, but a few voices that were very loud against it and called it the Highline tax, which ended just ended the effort. I think bids are you've seen many bids and even in the last five years fail. There are tricky mechanisms in the city and the optics around them is not as clear as you'd like it to go through that process. I don't think we could do it again now. I think there's some other structure we could consider. But going back and trying to do a bid again would really just be another very painful rejection and costly. But we do talk with other projects specifically about when the right time is to introduce that type of mechanism because it works. You have large bids in the city that work large bids in Philadelphia that work. They're trying to build a very similar project and talking about whether they incorporate that park into their bid. So I don't know that we would do it again. I think we really want to do it the first time and it was taken down with not a lot of effort. I'm getting the look that we're ending and perhaps our next next month or next year we'll have a panel on bids. Seems appropriate and we're ready and you all should be ready for bids too. Thank you very much everyone. Thank you.