 So on the topic of public-private partnerships, a theme that's been running through my head just given the political climate is the I will do it alone versus we the people can make this happen. And I think that's a really interesting dichotomy to think about for public-private partnerships. When we go and we advise people, we say you need a leader, you need a visionary, you need someone who is going to be your champion for this project because they are complicated, they are difficult, and they take a long time. But on the flip side, you need everyone to be involved to make it happen. And I think the cultural district is an example where it feels like it was somewhere in the middle and maybe was a little messy because it was so much of the we and there's different heads and people changing. And I think looking back on that experience, you know, where could have been, where were the benefits for that messiness and where were the difficulties and has it enabled the ultimate goals of trying to knit back into the neighborhood and bringing the neighborhood in and also improving the neighborhood. Has that really happened and how do you kind of like looking back seeing what could be done differently? Yeah, so it's a big one, but. I think actually Fort Green, I lived there for a while. And I think from the residents of the Fort, people who actually live in Fort Green and Clinton Hill in that area. I don't necessarily know that they feel that all this new development that's going on in downtown Brooklyn and around the band cultural district is really beneficial to them in terms of being a recipient. I think there is a tremendous backlash from the community saying that they can no longer afford to live there. And I think the city under the Bloomberg administration actually did a good job of down-zoning the historic districts and creating those areas to protect those historic brownstones and those beautiful areas. But you know, I think Brooklyn is at a point where there's tremendous change going on and there's a lot of growing pains. And the challenge for I think next 10 years is there's so much residential coming online. I think in next two to three years, there's almost 15,000 new units that's going to get built and delivered. That's combination of market rate condominiums, market rate rentals, and affordable housing. And it's really important, you know, for Pacific Park, we did this as part of negotiation with the city and the state by providing 35% affordable as overall development was one of the ways that we were able to actually create the large scale development for this project. And the affordability is actually very much more robust and it was the city had never actually done a significant number of the middle income housing, which is really from 100 to 200% of the AMI. And to give you guys an idea of what that means is 100% for family of four in 2016 is about $88,000 a year, right? So we're talking probably teachers, right? Recently graduating architects, most likely. So, you know, you're creating these much more sustainable development where all those people are living together, right? People who are paying, let's say $3,000 for a studio are living in the same building where someone because they income qualify can pay $1,000 for a studio in a brand new safe doorman building with washer and dryer in your unit, you know, with amenities. And there's another person who's actually only paying $400 a month in studio income qualifies. And I think it's a little bit of a social experiment because it's not something that city has done very well, I would say, because they typically do 80-20s, or 20%, you know, until recently, you could even put people in a poor door, which is, you know, ridiculous. So I think part of the backlash against people being priced at having to move away from the community, we want to, at least for Pacific Park, we want to reincorporate that community. So we've done lots of town hall meetings at different community boards, different schools, outreaches just to make sure that, you know, to educate people who really would know what a lottery process is to get into affordable housing, to educate them and have them actually come and apply for these, because it's really important. Like, I met a family, like a guy is a freelancer, and I think his wife is a teacher, and they just had a child, and they're applying for this affordable housing, because alternative is, like, they're going to have to move out to Lyland somewhere else, and they have to leave the city. And if they actually get this lottery, it would be, like, a life-changing event for them, so they could stay within the community and be able to have children, raise their children in the community that they've invested in. I mean, I think if you, you know, these are all, the cultural district is, I think, a pretty amazing mechanism for the other side of the equation, too. Not only the affordable housing, but actually, you know, you look at kind of institutions like Bomb, right, who have been able to get affordable office space, and look at how many people that they employ, and equally with Mark Morris, and the number of, you know, these institutions use their facilities, especially, like, when you think about brick, right, or even glass, they use their facilities, not just in the evening for performances, but there is a huge amount of programming for that was already there, but they just didn't have the facilities, wasn't well located. Ultimately, I think the equation in the city, and this is a bias, because I'm not an affordable housing person, is that the more jobs there are that pay well, the more skills people have, the more education, money gets put into education, and there's a lot of universities in downtown Brooklyn, the easier it is for people to access those. Ultimately, the volume of affordable housing will start to, you know, like, hopefully it will continue at 35%, but it will mean something different if people have a way to pay even that AMI for their rent, because they had an opportunity, you know, and this is really true across the board. Downtown Brooklyn was a place with a lot of a certain kind of jobs, essentially, you know, fire, and those jobs were highly, you know, prone to kind of political decision-making. Should government move into these offices? But none of those jobs help support arts. They, none of them really paid into supporting public spaces. So potentially, as long as it doesn't get balanced one way or the other, like too much Class A office or too much Class A housing, that Brooklyn continues to have enough volume, I think there's a very interesting experiment happening. That's sort of my perspective. Right, I agree with what you said. And, but also, I feel like it's really important, you know, what we see all the time is like, there's so much growth happening in Brooklyn right now, and, I mean, all over the city, but particularly Brooklyn, and the truth is that we haven't really come to terms with what that really means, and the truth is also that people who've been living in Brooklyn are called, nobody is in favor of growth happening around them. It's just the way things are. Nobody wants it anywhere near them, no matter how beautiful it is, no matter how much affordable housing there is, no matter how much wonderful sidewalk art there is, they just don't want it, period. Even Brooklyn Bridge Park, which is an amazing thing, and I actually have spent a few years living across the street from it and completely enjoyed it, but I had neighbors who were utterly appalled that the park had even been built. They would have preferred to have abandoned piers there because just having these people come in and be around their space just freaked them out too much. It's true. It's true. It's a really, so growing is an incredibly painful thing, and it's always been that way. And so we have to try to figure out the best way to deal with it is, ultimately, it is better for everyone. The city has to keep growing to survive and to remain viable. It's just not a choice. You can't say, well, we're just not going to build anymore because no one really wants it. It has to happen. We have to do it in the best way we can. We are living in a pretty enlightened era of development compared to what happened for the decades previously. It's amazing the difference compared to what happened in the 60s and 70s and 80s. And so we should be thankful for that, but we still are trying to figure out a way to make development palatable for people who live in neighborhoods where they don't want it to happen. I appreciate very much the optimism of this table. Yeah, and it's great. And New York is a fantastic force and et cetera, et cetera. The truth is, is that all of this has a very good side and a very dangerous side. You know, and it's both with the High Line and it's happening in Brooklyn. And obviously, you know, we all heard the High Line is beautiful. There's no doubt about it. You know, Liz and Ricardo Oscar Fidio did a great job. James Corner did a great job. You know, what's happening in Brooklyn is amazing. But on the other side, it is becoming a little bit of a zoo and a little bit of Disneyland, the whole thing. And it does bring higher taxes and it raises the value of the city. But then many, many people just cannot live there anymore. You know, I'm not an anti-gentrification advocate. I'm the contrary. You know, I believe very much in development. I believe very much in investment. But there must be other ways of dealing with this. I don't know what it is. I was yesterday in the building I just showed you and I can tell you that one bedroom apartment is renting for $6,000. But that's not the worst thing. The worst thing that I heard is that in order to rent that apartment, anybody needs to demonstrate that their salary is 50 times that amount. So anybody that doesn't make $300,000 a year cannot live in that building. So we're bringing all of these cultural institutions to an area that at the same time we're pushing away most of the people that would be the real natural and authentic people that would use these cultural institutions. We're bringing in really edgy cultural institutions that used to be in sort of lost places. But who's going to be their audience now? You know, it's going to be people that perhaps their interests are others. So there's a very, very complex sort of balance that I don't think anybody, you know, all of us included have been able to reach. In a way, though, I think just to counter that a bit is that that site you were on, the loss was, I mean, wasn't it a big plant nursery, right? So if you, but there are plenty of sites in the city where the loss is a valued Odana library, the loss is a nursing home. Everyone knows what site I'm referring to. The loss is that it changes what the brownstones cost. But there are, there's so much in the city that is dilapidated, ill-used industrial space that isn't supporting any jobs. And there's tons of city sites. And, you know, I'm going to get back to the Brooklyn Strand. We're talking about berms on the sides of highways. That for me, the city has to focus on not disruption of neighborhoods, but looking at the kind of growth in city-owned sites like it did on BAM Cultural District. It took city-owned sites or essentially parking lots and, or rail yards, except for a couple of sites. But, but like you're looking at sites that there's no eminent domain except for some police cars. You know, like the city has such capacity. New York, that's a great thing, I think, is that we have a lot of capacity. But we just want to, developers, and for you developers in the audience, you just want a sure thing. You just want to build in the same place everyone else is building after someone really who's done the hard work risking it, like, you know, everyone who tried to save that high line and I'll count myself among them. But, you know, and basically people want the easy payoff. So the real issue is how do we encourage in our public policy entrepreneurial developers the general entices who started off in Dumbo by, you know, giving Jacques Torres cheap space? Like, how do you encourage that instead of the let's just swoop in and take it for the short-term gain? There has to be some sort of public penalty in not taking a risk so that we get something back, I think. I think it's easier to offer very low-rents to companies like Jacques Torres when you bought the entire portfolio for significant, like, way, way below market and held up for 30 years. So I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I think what is for your future developers out there, you know, there is a saying, what does the pioneers get the arrows and settlers get the lead? I think, you know, developing in New York is incredibly difficult. And it doesn't matter whether you're doing a 20-unit building or 200-unit building. It's exactly the same. So it depends which wall you're going to bash your head against. And, you know, I don't want to sound negative, but it's the most fun, impactful thing that you can do with your life. I'm, you know, I personally love it. But there are battle scars that you will bear because the agencies you have to deal with, the negotiations that you have to, you know, have with the city and the state, and the community, because I think actually what's great is that the community organizations, right, community boards have now become very savvy and they're very active vocal voices in the future of their community. So they are also stakeholders. So you have to be able to manage all of these things so that, and there's a gift. There's always a gift. If it doesn't hurt, someone walked away. It's got three, right? Both sides have to hurt. All sides have to hurt a little bit. But you come with a development that's appropriate for that site. And you can look for pioneering sites. You know, Bushwick's already over, right? So you have to go further down the L train, I think. There's no other opportunities. But, you know, New York City, I think, is full of those things, but you have to have the staying strength in order to really develop it and see the project through it because it's going to take literally on a perfect project. It'll take you five years from the beginning to the end to bring a project online. The reality of it, it'll be a decade. But I think my argument was that the neighborhoods, not further down the L line, that shouldn't be the sole focus of developers. It's the infrastructure. Like, there are big sites that were never housing or haven't been since they got taken over by Robert Moses. And those sites are scars in neighborhoods and they're even not even neighborhoods. You look at sunny side yards. If we all, like, said, guys, no one's going to pose sunny side yards and doing something, let's all support and make sure there's something interesting there, then no one is going to say that you've just destroyed my street of brownstones. What needs to be thought about is New York is an ecosystem. We are a very complex ecosystem. And whenever you develop something, you need to think about who are you benefiting and who's benefiting from you. And think about both sides of that. So with BAM, we brought in a lot more attendance to BAM, who then fed the restaurants and the whole cultural amenities in the neighborhood, who then fed the residential development, who then fed back the cultural assets. Very long time, but it helped the ecosystem develop and foster upon itself. And so I think when you're looking at a project, you can't just look at that one site that's going to give you X amount of return. You have to think about it in the context and think about the ecosystem, both the jobs that it's creating and then where those people are going to live and how that's going to work together. Can I ask one question? So I wanted to ask whoever wants to answer this. So why don't we, why isn't this happening? Again, the city, like why isn't this happening in Harlem? Why don't we have a Harlem cultural district where groups are getting this kind of new facility support? It's happening. Well, not in the mechanism we're talking about here. But I think it's happening. It goes back to a very strong visionary, right? Harvey was very forthful to create this in the beginning. Yes, there were lots of people involved, but you had this very strong leader in the beginning. And I think it's that balance between the leader and the we and how you bring them together. It's not because we don't have enough city-owned sites? No, I mean, because it wasn't just about the city-owned sites that made them happen. I mean, it's a large part of it. It's a large part of it. It's not RFP, a private site. No, but there weren't, I mean, it wasn't, it's not like the city just was like, here's our land, make it happen. Okay, so my question is, if I look at city-owned sites, for example, in Harlem, why aren't those RFPs requiring culture? Okay, who, what? Why aren't the RFPs in Harlem on the city-owned sites requiring cultural investment the way they did at the Brooklyn Cultural District if there is a cultural district happening, which was part of the zoning on 125th and is not happening? You're right, I think there is lack of a single visionary and also, I would say, stewardship from the city that is lacking to make that happen. I think, you know, that leadership is incredibly important to make it happen. I also think that leadership is not necessarily a responsibility of the city, of the public realm, and we need developers that are more committed to social causes, to cultural causes, and that are more visionary. In the project I was mentioning in Harlem, unfortunately, it's a project I was partially doing with you. I'm not doing it with you anymore, but it's moving forward beautifully and it's becoming a cultural district, like cultural, and it's a totally privately owned project that is attracting a number of cultural institutions and social institutions that will create in that part of Harlem, I believe, a similar situation. You know, there are not two situations that are identical, but it's pretty close, I would say. Really fascinating for us and hopefully for you all. Do you want to, questions or? Yeah. If you want to, and we're late on time. We're running a little late, but just a couple of questions. Burning questions from the floor? I was just wondering if we hold ever different parts. Best practices in New York versus other cities you worked in? Who thinks you've seen here that you love and that are elsewhere and vice versa? That's such a huge theme. That should be another seminar. Obviously New York is a big example for the world. It's a very sophisticated society. Also it has tremendous problems. I would be very happy to be part of such a thing, but it's really very long. It's a very, very, very long discussion. Well, to be very brief, obviously New York is a very sophisticated society where some issues are sort of not working very rightly. One of them is a very beautiful idea and a very great idea of the 20th century that I think has some tune up, which is called democracy. And we're seeing it not only within our projects. I hope you don't have to suffer it in your bigger political realm because that could be a huge historical mistake due to a malfunctioning of democracy, for example. So the excess of democracy, it's somehow creating huge problems in the city. It's also the huge excess of being a free market is creating huge problems. Free market is a beautiful idea. We don't have any, in any of the two cases, we don't have a better solution. It's really the best solution, but it's come to such extremes that it's backlash. But those are very extreme things that we should discuss. Absolutely. Well, there you are. What a better way to finish up with setting the stage for our next panel. And we've heard that this is the free market and democracy coming together, both challenged, but both also having exciting outcomes. And I think Enrique's call for developers to be much more in tune with these requirements for the public space and the public good of communities is precisely why we're having this today. This is being hosted by the program, the Graduate Masters of Real Estate Development program. So hopefully many of our young people in the audience who are coming through will be such developers. Good luck. So on that note, I want to thank our panelists, both of them, and invite everyone to have lunch, please.