 So just building on this morning, it seems to me that there's an interesting theme emerging around understanding and data. So the one, of course, is we've had a wonderful set of insights about, if you will, official statistics and representations and some fancy footwork with regressions and so forth. Then we've had interesting perspectives on the importance of qualitative understandings and again with the quantitative bent in terms of quality of life and so on. And then I think we've also had reflections on the importance and the work that Ricky has presented where they decided to do more qualitative work, to actually ask people their views and get a sense of qualitative experiences. And then I think we've just heard a third set of knowledge areas, which one can I suppose call insurgent practices, Jackie and Jorgen's presentations, where what people do in and of themselves represent really important insights and clues about how do we think about a response. Then to move on to the question of design and responses, we're talking about three scales here. We're talking about within the household, improving living conditions, air pollution and so on. At the neighborhood scale, the importance of open space. And then of course how all of this articulates at the city region scale or at the metropolitan scale. So with us just summary of reflections on some of the themes and connections with this morning and between the talks, I'm inviting people to make comments, ask questions of clarification and to be very brief so that we can democratize the space as much as possible. And if you could also just to remind you introduce yourself very briefly before you pose your question or make your comment. The floor's open. Thanks. Well rather than ask, well here's my question. I would like to ask one of the speakers, Anthony Yeh, the planner to respond and give his reactions to the talk by Jackie Kwok and Jorgen because they raise interesting issues and it would be interesting to hear the response back from the planner. Well thank you. Of course actually I was thinking about it, you know, when they would present a paper. What is my reaction, right? Right? It is very simple. If we are talking about planning, you know, try to house 400,000 people within one square kilometers, can you do the type of, you know, self-help housing that we are talking about, right? It's impossible, right? So I think it is talking about the scale. This one issue. The other issue is, I was talking about, you know, when we're looking at this is that whether you would like to have more communal space that is open space or you want to have your own private space, I think this is also this type of debate, right? You want to be able to identify, you know, your personal space to your so-called external space. But the more important thing is about affordability. Everybody, even in Hong Kong, would like to have something like, you know, what you have been seeing in Monsambi, right? Because, you know, everybody would like their own house, but can you afford it unless you are trying to, everybody would like to occupy the land illegally in Hong Kong, right? So it is also about the scale issues, about the ownership issues, about, you know, the trade-off issues. And also, I think, more importantly, you know, with such a large population within one square kilometre, and you are talking about 400 million people, will this be realistic? Thanks. Behind. Can I move on if you don't mind, please? Okay. Behind. Thank you. Johannes Fier, University of Braunschweig, Germany. The two latter presentations they highlighted for me, the necessity of providing space to be appropriated by people in the city. And I think the possibility of appropriation is actually very central to well-being. So there's a highly relevant aspect of well-being in the city. So I wonder what could be a future for a city like Hong Kong. Can a city be sustainable on the long run without offering possibilities for people to genuinely appropriate space in a way as, for example, the urban cities of the United States or the sprawling environments of Europe provide this possibility? Can there be any sustainable city development without allowing people shape their own spaces? Can I ask from the panel who wants to respond? May I give a brief response to Professor Yeh? I mean, refreshing on our presentation. Professor Yeh said that we got to have some kind of trade-off to develop communal space. And if I understand correctly, he says that it is not realistic to have, I mean, this kind of public space which can allow a free expression of people in a highly densely populated region. But now we have the case. It is real, although it is illegal. But actually, I mean, the older people, they, I mean, they now have some kind of consensus with the government. And they try their best to participate into the planning and design panel of the government to, I mean, to impose their design on the duckling hill. So actually, if the people don't fight against this kind of programmed space, they will not have the space for free expression. So the people has to fight. Just like Lefebvre said, the revolution has to be urban. This is what the people is doing, especially the older people. So they are very old, older than the age of 70. So they are still fighting. If I can put some comments, I think one of the problems. Yes, I'm Paul Yip. I'm doing the work with Ricky on this housing problem. I think one thing what we have seen in Hong Kong, I think for the past 20 years, I mean, it doesn't matter. Our GDP has gone up by so much, but the living space of the Hong Kong people has not been improved. I think now, I think one of the articles, I think there's a misprint there. I think we are talking about half of our household where living is less than 500 square feet, less than 500 square feet, half of our household. So what we are talking about now, I mean, the limiting of the housing space, it actually, it really affects not only the physical health, it's also the social engagement. We are talking about the people, they would not be able to invite their friends to come to the house. So this assessment, this social contact itself has been serious effectors. So I think it's one thing in Hong Kong. I think the Hong Kong government always saying this, well, I think now we don't have any problem to live on street, everybody have a shelter. But I think we have reached a stage that we cannot just simply live with this condition. We have to move on. I think we have to do something about this. Kong Chong from the National University of Singapore. I think that exchange between Anthony and Jackie perhaps was done really at different scales. There shouldn't be this kind of contention because I think in Singapore if you look at what we have been doing, some of the things that we have been doing are very modest projects to involve people. And in particular we are talking about community gardens. Now surely something as modest as that allow for residents to actually participate in designing what kinds of things they want. But at the same time don't get at the kinds of macro issues that Anthony talks about. So I think there is a balance really in practice. Thank you. Thank you, Ricky. I think we should try and also bring this a little bit back to what does this have to do with well-being and health. I mean to agree that's the challenge of what we're saying. And I think there is a sort of link between what Richard Sennett was talking about earlier. That unless you provide a city or the sort of development that the organ was talking about which is sort of informal, difficult to understand, but it has its own DNA which everyone who lives there understands. Unless you provide the sorts of spaces where those complex sort of interactions between different people without excluding others. Unless you do that I think it's very unlikely that you create the conditions where people can let off steam. Let's call it that. I mean I think you showed a very small scale sense of appropriation. But I think one of the issues which comes out which does link connected to design is the absence of grain. I mean many of these images that we see in Hong Kong in particular I find sometimes difficult to take the language you're using about communal spaces, well managed, and then you show pictures that to me feel like how the hell am I going to get there? Or how is someone who doesn't feel that it's there going to get there? And I think this notion of actually designing spaces or creating spaces which can be layered by sort of different activities or user types is the big challenge for all of us. It's not in any way a critique. But I think that language is to me problematic of a well managed space. I mean what we found through the interviews we've done sort of together is that people were describing in a very, very psychological way that the compression within makes them need use the space outside for other things and it's just not part of our discourse. As architects, as planners, as designers, it's just and there's no one in architecture school, you know, Rainier, who ever talks about these sorts of issues. Planners don't go down to the sort of smaller scale. So there's a sort of void there which is a disciplinary void which I think is really quite interesting and perhaps brings us back to even that level of guidance points earlier this morning about whether a human being naturally fits into a city. But anyway I think those are for me important questions. The concept of resilience of public space, whatever the scale is absolutely central. Thanks, Rikki. A quick response to all this type of questions. Obviously whenever we talk about planning and people say planning is bad, right? Okay. And I think that first of all, I think, well in planning we do, I think about the user participation is very important. In any, even architecture building, whatever, we respect citizens' participation. And also we have public engagement. But one thing I think we have to talk about, for example, like these Hill projects. We are not talking about an area that we are being used by 400,000 people. We're only talking about at most only 10,000 people we've been using it and we are talking about only one age group. For example, if we are talking about the public space in central and we want the citizens to participate in trying to doing that, right? That would be a totally different thing. Everybody fighting, you know, the kids want one thing and then the elderly people want one thing. You know, you have to have a sort of like a balancing, right? So I think the scale issue is very important when we are talking about how the user can dominate the use or whether we can have a sort of like institutional, you know, negotiator thing of like a planner or like a manager to try to, you know, balance that. So the scale issue is very important. The other thing is whether Hong Kong urban development is sustainable, my answer is simply no, it's not sustainable. But you still have to manage this unsustainable city, right? Okay. Now, the other thing is about the issues about the related to the conflict issues. And also, when Ricky, you talk about Sam Shui Po, right? And also what I've been trying to talk about is the overall picture. And now we are talking about different historical development. Sam Shui Po was developed at a time in the 1950s, in 1960s, where the design management standards is very poor. And so if you talk about housing management, it does not exist there. But then if you go to the new towns, it will be different environment, right? So I mean, now we have to talk about what type of environment you are now studying. Are you studying an environment in the, developed in the 1950s, in the 60s? Then I can tell you that is really terrible. But if you talk about the environment being developed in the, say, 80s, 90s, and 2000s, it's getting better and better. Because we are using better urban design, better urban management, and also better planning. Better for whom? Well, it's also a sentence, right? For the sentence. So I think this is the one thing that is very interesting. I think you need to do scientific research saying that this is the old environment and this is the new environment. And ask the people whether they are satisfied with this old or new. And then you will find out, you know, what is the impact about, you know, the planning and the design. Actually, we have done a lot of studies on that. And for example, we have tried to study the elderly, or you like the older people, how do they adjust to the new towns and environment and also to the old environment. Actually, we have two papers already published in the international journals about it. And then you will find the contrast, right? It's mainly because of the historical element. Thank you so much. I've got three hands. Well, it's now four. I'm not looking anymore. And I'm going to give those four people a chance to make their comments. And then we will be out of time. And so if there's any one of our panelists who wants to have a final word, I'll give them the space. But hopefully not. Please, I'll start with you. My name is Dieter Leppler. I'm from Hamburg, Germany. I think it was very stimulating what you presented. And Shasta would like to make some conceptual comments. Talking about the density and the question you said, the breaking point between, breaking point between density and livability. I think it's a very complex relation between people, links, like buildings, signs, like architecture, design, and spaces. And the dynamic forces between our interactions. So finally, talking about density, it's all about the density of interactions. We are things and we are people things and signs. So I think this would be a crucial point. You know, you are measuring, of course, people per square meter or square kilometer, but actually what is behind are the social relations, articulating in social interactions. And so I think when you, when Anthony is talking about that high density living is more demanding, it's not just demanding in managing or design. It's mainly demanding in the question of social coherence and the question of social competence, how you can live together and how you can transform this density in form of urbanity and civility. So I think this dimension of the social dimension is absolutely crucial. You know, people highly educated, good earning people, they can live in a high density building, but as soon as there are social ruptures, you know, it will reinforce all the problems. So density is also a form of buffer of reinforcer. So this is, I think, actually crucial problem. Now, what I think is very interesting in the last presentation by Jürgen Andersen, that we are confronted with a different form of space, that this vernacular space being created via these informal activities shows us that behind this density is also the question of the multifunctionality, that inside these vernacular spaces you have this integration of all these opportunity structures of living, working and so on. And I'm very glad that he's not just talking about slums, but precisely as a slums of hope, which can be really forms of city builders and that informality is a form, a mode of urbanization. But we really have to care that it's not just the absence of the state, but that politics is demanded to really to upgrade it and be responsible for this development of this vernacular space in a real human sustainable space. And then these forms of density can really be an asset and not just a problem. Thank you. The remaining three speakers will have a quarter of that time. So Gita, you next. Okay, I'll cut out most of it. I'm Gita Mthawari from IIT, Delhi. My question is related to the last two presentations and where we have discussed it was called slums sometimes or formal settlements versus informal settlements. My question is that can we look at it into what is there in self-planned settlements versus what is being planned by experts? And the examples we have seen is that in self-planned the way spaces are being used is different. Our formal planners, we don't have that kind of definition. How do we make that intensive use of spaces that self-planned people are doing? And maybe they are giving us some lessons as to where they are locating themselves. It is access to employment, access to opportunities is what is most important. Whereas as formal planners, we end up giving them nicely cut out plans. Sometimes it is 20, 30, 40 kilometers away from the main city. And that in that example also, we see that everything gets sold out and the land market has different dynamics. So my question is, can we draw some lessons? What is self-planned settlements are showing us for experts? Which I think experts are missing out right now. Thanks. It's a theme. I'm sure we will come back to in some of the next sessions. I move on. Yeah, I wanted to make a few points and... Introduce yourself. I am Siddharth. I work for Urban Health Resource Centre and NGO in India. I think the last two presentations showed to us that lending voice and power to those who have less voice has an important dimension as we think about all these things. And the scenario in Mozambique resonates with a large proportion of developing countries of this world and a very large proportion of the planet's urban population. Most of these developing countries are having cities which are growing very fast. So I think that situation is probably applicable to a very large section of the urban population. It also shows us how power balance can be better settled. So do the politicians or the private sector need to come in and resettle slumps? Or can there be a power balance where the informal settlements have a voice, have a power, and they can negotiate that those who are trying to come and do a surgical intervention we have a resettlement plan for them because they probably need some sort of activities which can be done in a different location. And the last point I want to make is what Ricky also said. When we think about something better planned, better for whom is what you said. And that's an important question to consider at all times. I think it's a direction of greater hope and it also brings the human dimension of urban design towards better health, better well-being. Because you include more people in the dialogue. And the last point is that if we had people from informal settlements in the discourse here today, our discourse could have been more enriching because they could have brought in a dimension of thinking which as Geetham also said, we probably might be missing. Thank you. Can I ask our last contributor to be extremely brief? For Wilson Victoria University of Wellington, thank you. I just want to reflect on the opening remark that Ricky made at the beginning of the session and that is that we haven't yet begun to connect this discussion of subjective well-being to density. And it's occurred to me in listening to the last few speakers why we haven't been able to do this. And I think one of the reasons is is that the instruments which we've developed so far for measuring subjective well-being have not been oriented to this question. And therefore, they have not asked questions about your housing size, for example. They haven't asked questions about whether you live in a multi-unit property or not. They haven't asked questions, specific enough questions about accessibility and getting around the city. So I think the real challenge from the discussion we've had so far is for urbanists to address the subjective well-being literature and say, what sort of instrument should we develop in order to answer the questions which we are interested in asking? The economists who have been looking at the economics of happiness have not been concerned with density. They haven't been concerned with anything spatial to be perfectly honest. And it's only the geographers and the city planners who are now beginning to ask this question. So I think it's a challenge for us to develop instruments that will help us answer the question which recreation beginning. Thank you. Great. Thank you very much. Unfortunately, none of the panellists are getting a final word. They'll have to insert their comments in later discussions. I'll conclude with just one observation. This was obviously an incredibly rich and dynamic discussion and bodes well for the rest of the conference. But it seems to me that one of the issues we really need to tease out is giving greater substance to a spectrum of regulation. So clearly, a regulation is required. You're not going to be able to induce urban form and quality of urban life without regulation. But is this regulation from the top down? Is it from the eye of the state? Or is this regulation that is able to work with, if you will, the temporalities and the dynamics of the city as it is emerging? And within that, there's obviously important discussions to be had comparatively between when you have a GDP per capita of less than $500, hardly any tax base, limited state capability versus the kind of wealth and state capability that underpinned what we heard as the regulatory mode for Hong Kong. What does that mean for the regulatory discussion? What does contingent, or if you will, a spectrum of regulation mean within that? And can we within that discussion insert the beginnings of something more concrete about what Ricky said was the void in our discussion about what exactly is this resilience of public life, of sittiness that we're talking about? And how does that manifest in a $500 per capita city versus a $50,000 per capita city? So in those thoughts, I want to again thank our panelists, thank the enthusiastic engagement from the floor, and we will break now for coffee, and because our speakers were so robust, you only get 18 minutes for coffee, so you have to be back in your seats by 19 minutes past, so we can start at 20 past four with the next session. Thank you.