 Ladies and gentlemen please welcome to the stage filmmaker, author and television host Holly Morris. Great to be here. I hope it's been a good conference for everybody. So pleased to be here back in my hometown of Chicago and talk to you about the business of saving places. It's really something that is close to my heart in a funny way and we're going to talk about it through the context of Chernobyl. A place that I think we can all agree is arguably maybe not exactly worth saving. So especially in these times of unprecedented displaced peoples around the globe, whether it's from poverty or environmental disaster or war, I think it's an apt time to be taking on some of these issues. But I'm in the business of saving stories and you're in the business of saving places so hopefully over the next hour or so we can make some progress. So we're going to start by going back in time to 1986. As you can see my first slide is up and we are at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. I'm going to click this and hope that this works. There we go. That is the sound of a dosimeter. As you can see what we have is Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the background, in the foreground, a Geiger counter or a dosimeter. You have to have one at any time when you're in the zone and that noise becomes ubiquitous there. Here you can see that, sorry, it's an unlikely place to talk about, it's unlikely place to sort of grapple with the ideas of wellness in place. Sorry, I'm getting a rough start here. Not moving. There we go. Let's go back a little bit. Not moving on, fellas, can you help me? There we go. So I'm a journalist, a filmmaker, and I was first in Chernobyl in 2010. So you don't know me but that look on my face is not journalistic grit or determination to get the story, it's pure fear. Standing in front of the reactor it is a, there's a lot of, this is called the sarcophagus that is over reactor number four and there's radioactive dust that's blowing out of that. So I'm there in the middle of essentially a radioactive police state. I'll tell you a little bit more about that and I'm thinking I just want to get the hell out of there, right? Every time you go into the zone you have to pass through radiation detectors and every time you leave the zone you also have detectors. I put this photo up only because what's interesting about it to me is, well, let's put it this way. Every time I probably went through there probably 20 times the course of making my film The Babushkas of Chernobyl and about a third of those times it was unplugged. So in the context of the lesson for a group like you, you know, you can put the tools and infrastructure of health in place, but if the humans in charge don't buy in, well the machine might as well be unplugged. Now the zone, this is a typical abandoned house inside the zone. It's a strange place. There are sort of scattered ghost villages everywhere. It's eerie, bucolic, beautiful, creepy, totally contaminated. Many villages were bulldozed at the time of the accident. That was their first sort of effort at remediation they were buried under, but others like this one sort of sit as silent vestiges to the tragedy. So you get the idea. It's a restricted, lifeless, without cultural living history. I mean, this sign drives the point that there should be no people living anywhere near the dead zone. But the thing is, they are in villages like this. So on that first trip that I took to Chernobyl in 2010, I'd stumbled across the reality that there was a community inside the zone, which immediately captured my attention and became the beginning of the film. It's a typical homestead. You know, the people there defied common sense authorities in 1986 to return to their ancestral homes inside the zone. Now 1,200 people returned to the zone in the months and weeks after the accident. And today, a little more than 30 years since then, a little over 100 survive. Now, when I first went into a village, I met this woman, Hannah Zavorotnia. She was busy when I met her. She is the self-declared mayor of Kupovate Village, population 8. She, you know, I guess my first question going in when I started meeting people was, you know, I lack the expertise that many of you have here in the audience, and my question are these people ignorant or crazy or both? It was about that simple. I was really two years away from understanding the fierce ties to place that drive and form and even sustain a life. So Hannah made short work of the pig, which I'm going to very briefly show you in the next picture. It was pretty graphic. I've never actually shown this picture because it is a bit graphic, but in a way it epitomizes the resilience of the people inside the zone and people working together to survive, which is what happened how we got to this moment. The other day, that was going to happen on the first day I met Hannah, was there was this hawk hanging above her chicken coop. She explained to me that when it messed with her chickens, she beat it to death and strung it up as a warning to other hawks who might get any ideas. Now let me tell you a little bit more about Hannah's homestead. She, you know, as the years gone on, well, lots of people were evacuated and accepted relocation, but also people are passing away. Again, there were 1,200 people coming back in after the accident. By the time I was there, 230. So the houses are empty. So Hannah had one house full of potatoes, one house full of her pickled goods, one house where she was boiling the pig. So real estate was repurposed pretty significantly. Now Hannah also lives with her sister, her disabled sister who she's been taking care of for some 40 years now. So we're in her house, and I ask Hannah the obvious question, you know, about living inside the radioactive zone. And she says, radiation doesn't scare me, starvation does. And proceeded to serve me another heap of steaming dumplings and moonshine. The next photo is Hannah and her sister-in-law and Maria. And they've been friends since girlhood. Now when a soldier nabbed Maria back in 86 and she was trying to get back into her village, she said, shoot me and dig the grave, otherwise I'm staying. Now you have to remember, these are women who have survived the worst atrocities of the 20th century, Stalin's and forced famines of the 1930s, which killed millions of Ukrainians. The Holodomor, that was called. After that they faced the Nazis in the 40s who moved across raping, killing, and many of these women were sent to Germany as forced labor. So in 86 when Chernobyl happened, and they were being evacuated, they were simply unwilling to leave in the face of an enemy that was invisible. Now life in the zone is difficult. There's a lot of hardship, there's a lot of suffering and sadness. People cannot, the children, anyone under 18 can only come once a year. And of course, so their grandchildren they rarely see. Their own children, adult children, if they have them, if they're lucky enough to have them in the region, come in frequently. So there is a lot of isolation and sadness, which makes their micro-community, their micro-hood all that more important. So, you know, co-social cohesion among this group is everything, really, despite their diminishing numbers. And they really articulated it in a very high-spirited way. I'm going to show you a quick clip from the film. Oh, that's not it. Sorry, guys. Here we go. Laughing, that was just supposed to be a high-spirited moment, but humor, I have to say, there was so much of it inside the zone. It's a place we only think of generally as suffering and death, and there is a lot of that. But as a filmmaker, I did run into some problems when I was like, God, they're really funny. And how do you make a funny Chernobyl film? And it's not that me imposing that on them. They were just really funny, and it was a tool for survival and resilience, I believe. My favorite moment of the film, I didn't put up here, is when Maria and Hannah, and they're all sitting around, and Maria holds up a little bit of booze, shoots it back, says goodbye, brain, see you tomorrow, and shoots it back. And I'm like, oh, God, that's got to be in this trailer. You know, but we're on a t-shirt. It was great. But, you know, so part of the challenge as a filmmaker was to represent the complexity of the reality in the zone. That suffering and death, and there have been, you know, thousands of other death-related Chernobyl, live alongside resilience and love of Motherland and moonshine. So, somehow we've gotten to that, but sure. Mmm. Going back to Maria here. Nope. There we go. All right. Sorry, guys. We're having a little... This is when I love the fact that there's multiple cameras going on because this can be edited. We've taken a left turn here. These are called stalkers. They are a group of young people, mostly Ukrainians, mostly men, who sneak into the zone to pursue some of them radioactive thrills. They have dosimeters. They are searching for the buried machinery dumps, where the machinery used after the accident was put because it was radioactive. Some of them are imitating a video game, which is set inside the zone. And others, let's see here, are going to... This is a radioactive machinery dump. They'll put their dosimeters on the machinery and see how high it can go, and then they will sprint off. Very reckless behavior. This is an interior shot of the town of Pripyat. So there are many villages in the zone, but there's only one city, and this was the company town of the nuclear power plant. And in this city, residents were evacuated about a day and a half after the accident. They were told they were going to be gone three days. They were, in fact, gone forever. So the city is this kind of elegiac still life that the stalkers sneak into and explore. It's a ghost city now. It is one of the most radioactive places in the zone. But I think some of them are reckless adventurers. But I do think, like the babushkas, the stalkers are driven by a yearning for place and home and belonging. I mean, you do have to remember that most of them are in their 20s, early 30s. They had never seen the villain at the center of the tragedy that devastated their generation. Their parents' generation often took the lives of their grandparents. And so in a way, they go in to see the reactor and they go in to find pioneer camps, the Soviet camps that they went to as children. And to sort of look back at the past to find their place moving forward. One stalker told me that his grandfather was an engineer in the Chernobyl control room the night of the accident. He was put in prison immediately after the accident and got out and immediately died of cancer. Another worked for fighting the fire after the accident. Everybody there seems to have, in terms of everybody, but the stalkers as well, have ties. Now this is the Chernobyl... This is an amusement park in Pripyat that is now falling to pieces and the stalkers do go there as well. Kind of a holy grail for the stalkers is the rooftop of the Pripyat buildings. You can see that nature has taken over there. It was a pretty big city with a couple hundred thousand people, I think. And so just like the animals have returned to the zone, nature has begun to take over. And you can get a look at that there. When I talked to some members of the panel a couple of weeks ago, one person mentioned that displacement can actually change one's genes. And I got to thinking about the stalkers in this context because they are in the most dangerous places in the zone. They are young and radioactive contaminants negatively affect them more than older people. And they have sort of the double whammy of being in a place that can mess with your cellular makeup as well as in changing your DNA because of the displacement. So I thought that was quite interesting. Maybe something we can talk about in the panel afterwards. This is another shot from the roof. You can see they romanticize this activity quite a bit too. This group of women lived their entire lives together in a town called Moshavow, a village called Moshavow. They went through their weddings, births, sending people off to the army together, everything, their whole lives together. But when I talked to them, this is what they said. We had everything in the forest. Our children will remember, but their children will never know. The stalkers represent the generational impact of displacement. And now that generation is who the babushkas are truly worried about. Home is the entire cosmos of the rural babushka, and connection to the land is really palpable. Perhaps because these Ukrainian women were schooled under the Soviets and versed in the Russian poets, aphorisms about this slip easily and often from their lips. If you leave, you die. Those who left are worked off now. Motherland is motherland. I will never leave. Now, curiously, what sounds like faith might actually be fact. This is a doctor at the Chernobyl Medical Center. Now, he was telling me about a study that showed that those who left, those who accepted relocation, actually died earlier than those who stayed by some estimates up to 10 years. This is not to diminish the very real dangers of radiation. In terms of the deaths from Chernobyl, Greenpeace says 4,000. The World Health Organization says 4,000. Greenpeace puts the number of eventual Chernobyl deaths in the tens of thousands. Again, not to minimize that, but what he was talking about is a complicated equation. The returnees did not suffer relocation trauma, which means they avoided what relocated people suffer everywhere, higher levels of alcoholism, depression, and, importantly, disrupted social networks. The people who accepted relocation were in these soulless highrises in the outskirts of Kiev, separated from all that was important to them, the gardens, the graves of their children, the sound of stork wings on a spring afternoon. And there are real consequences to that. So his summary about those people who were relocated was simply, they die of anguish. So it turns out, home and community are forces that can rival even radiation. And the film I was making, you know, when I went into it, I was thinking, okay, this is a film about radiation, this is about nuclear disaster, this is some interesting people helping to tell that story. But in fact, it ended up not being about that. In fact, it ended up being a film about home. Radiation may be the invisible enemy, but home was the elixir. And I wanted to show you this woman's home, because it typifies so much. She has, her name's Valentina, she had thyroid cancer, and Place was definitely her antidote. On his deathbed, her husband made her promise to never leave her home. Now, she said to me, as I was kind of leaving with a sort of twinkle in her eye, up in the attic, I have five jugs of moonshine. When I die, my kids won't have to buy any. You know, she sort of typified a lot. I mean, you know, a comment full of suffering, home, resilience, pragmatism, faith. Now, radiation or not, the women of the zone are at the end of their lives. In the next decade, the zone's human residents will be gone. And it will revert to a wild, radioactive place full only of animals and occasionally daring, flummoxed scientists, or reckless searching stalkers. But the spirit and existence of the Babushkas leave us with powerful new templates to think about and to grapple with. About the relative nature of risk, about transformative connections to home, and about the palliative powers of place, the vital importance of agency and self-determination. To answer my question from the beginning, what's worth saving in a radioactive wasteland? These are the things worth saving from Chernobyl and building into our notions of community in the future. So those are my final thoughts, but let's end on the words of Valentina Ivanovna, a first responder the night of the accident and also a nurse, an herbalist, and most importantly, an angler. This is not the zone of freedom. I've been to the UK for five times. There are exhaust gases. More than even here. Because every machine is exhaustive. And you breathe it in your lungs. You eat it. You chemically eat it all at once. It's not good. It's not good. It's not a zone of alienation. Life doesn't stop here, but nature takes its own. And the river is the same. And the fish is alive the same. I won't go anywhere. Let me have a gun. Thank you for sharing that wonderful tale with us. And if you haven't watched the Babushkas of Chernobyl, please, please look at it. It's a fabulous story. The last comment there reminded me about the importance of perspective in this. I remember one of the other comments that one of the women made, and they said, when you come to a puddle, some people look down and they see the sky. Some people look down and they see themselves. And some people just see a puddle. And I think the perspective that these women bring to place and to their lives and to their health and what's important to them is really important. We've been having some wonderful conversations around health here at Pass Forward in Chicago. And we're delighted to have this conversation today. It's interesting that in our vision for the future of preservation, we talk about the need to collaborate with new partners in working on fundamental issues that help make the world better. And health is one of those fundamental issues. And for our conversation that we have today, we're partnering with a filmmaker and activist and author, the leader of one of the country's most effective and active statewide preservation organizations, a mathematician and urbanist, and a public health specialist, transportation planner and nutritionist. So I think we've actually brought together a really interesting partnership to have this conversation around health. As Holly said, her film began as a story about nuclear disaster and ended up being a film about home. So I'd like to ask each of our responders to speak about your work and how you see that connection between place and home contributing to well-being. And I'm going to start with Anna. Good. Professional working in the context of urban planning and transportation. I'm really thinking about how can we bring a health perspective to everything that we're doing when it comes to the built environment? So how, when we're planning where our streets are laid out or what lands uses are going to be, can we make sure that health is first and foremost brought to the table and how we're thinking about the people who are going to be occupying those spaces for a long time, especially in the United States and throughout the world, as the United States is such an influencer throughout the world. I think we were focused mostly on moving cars, not people, and the economic development outcomes as the most important metrics for the success of our cities. And we've come to realize that it really is more about the people and our health and the potential of the people that live in our cities and other places too, rural environments, we need to think more about and how the potential of those people to live the highest quality of life is actually what's going to be the most successful lead to the most success for all of us. And that can't just be the wealthy and it can't just be the middle class. It has to be everyone. So I'm currently at the American Planning Association where we are training planners, educating planners, working with planners at all levels to help them, guide them and give them tools to better include health and a health perspective and a human perspective in their work, no matter what scale they'll be working at. And I think that topics like this film really connect health and place in very stark ways among particular populations and allow us to think about how people are all individuals but yet we have these common needs that we all need to think about. Great. Nicos? Yes. Well, it's lovely to be here and I have seen the film The Blue Bushes of Chernobyl, very moving film. When I was invited to come here, I had a misunderstanding. So I prepared the mathematical model to try to explain why the Babushka's return and especially to explain why the Babushka's return lived longer than the ones that were relocated. So if you bear with me, I will put into place a mathematical model that considers the quality of life based on three factors and each factor contributes one third and when we add them, we get one which is the optimal. So the first factor comes from belonging and memory and the identity of place which is fundamental to a conference such as this one. So obviously the film shows that there's memory of place going back to several generations of these people. Everyone who was relocated for their own safety was severed from this source of healing and continuity deeply rooted. So that one third was removed from their lives. The Babushkas who returned were there and that was a contributing factor towards their health. The rootedness, being back to the rootedness. Now another factor is the geometry of the environment which is what I talked about yesterday in the other session is the neurological responses we have from the environment namely a lot of nature these are idyllic scenes if you ignore the radioactivity these are idyllic scenes surrounded by nature. More importantly there is the pedestrian environment something that is very important for the health of people in cities. Here you have a totally pedestrian environment and the architecture is one that was self constructed. These shacks that some architects look down on are created by their own hands. These people created the houses by their own hands and they are all wonderfully adaptive to their life made of wood. These are a source of the other one third of a healing reaction that people who live in these buildings because they have been built by their grandfathers in some cases and they are at human level taking care of them maybe a little dilapidated but that's a one third in addition. To show what the model has for the Babushkas who did the return we have one third plus one third which gives us two thirds of quality of life and it's a nourishing environment that's missing is that it's unhealthy because it's radioactive. Now let me use the model for the people who were relocated. They were relocated to Soviet style housing blocks. There is absolutely no healing effect from the architectural urban environment. It's usually isolated the blocks even though the pedestrians, the distances are huge. It's totally unfriendly. So you're missing the one third because they are detached from their history and from the places where they grew up. They're detached. There is no connection to the actual building and the city. So they have plus one third because there's no radioactivity. But one third is less than two thirds. So that explains why the Babushkas who stayed have a longer life. We were going to bring a blackboard in and let Nico put all that up. I've met him at the beginning of his life. I would have saved two years of my life. It's like I talked to a mathematician before. Bonnie, tell us a bit about what you're working on and how it makes this connection between place and wellness. Yes, good morning everyone. I represent Landmarks Illinois which is the statewide historic preservation organization here in Illinois. I'm like many of you have signed with my team practical ways to apply any type of argument that we can make to articulate the importance of place to people. So I would say that we're always as a field opportunistic in that we're willing to look at new ways of giving a narrative to the importance of what we do. So at Landmarks Illinois we've been talking for the last five years about how to evolve the way that we're expressing the importance of place to people. And frankly the first thing that we did was to really question why we do what we do. I think that we need to better understand the intrinsic value of preservation and frankly to me as a preservationist it's about providing a place for people but for the role that that buildings and places and structures play in our lives and how we use them I wonder the value of what we do and that in some ways might be controversial but I think that the usefulness of places is very important to us. So we started to turn our work on its head and talk about people saving places for people and we adopted that as our mantra and thought first about people which was very different from what was started as an organization in 1971 like many of you we probably started to save the edifice to save the beautiful place and I think now if we think about how the place is a vessel for our own identity it gives a new narrative to what we do. So as we're trying in our way and collectively here to evolve the preservation movement I think this is the next iteration of what we do is that the place is inherently an indicator of identity or that identity is tied to place. As I'm sure we'll talk about Dr. Mindy Fullalove the idea that identity and place are inextricably linked and so our role is invariably to help people understand and I think connect our own identity. So we don't know yet how to do that well so I'm just going to say to you that we're learning and we're evolving how we do that and that's why I'm very excited about this topic as part of the conference. Thanks, Mindy. I'd like to build on that and ask Holly in your work for two years with the Babushkas what did you find out in terms of that importance of memory and place of their well-being? You talked about it a little bit but if you can expand some on how they that connection? Well just to clarify it took five years to make the film thought I'd save too with the math but so yes memory and place were inextricably wed and that sort of revealed itself in the process. Again I went in thinking there's the reactor there's this kind of ruin porn these broken down buildings there's all these things and visually as a filmmaker you're thinking that but the story quickly became very human and you can the women they just the women who stayed there and the women who were relocated to the soil and to place my child is buried there my parents are there there's a whole scene in the graveyard which is lovely not just sad and so it becomes everything to them and of course with the Babushkas it will die with them this region of Ukraine called the Policia region the customs and everything that we saw will go with them and hopefully this film will help preserve some of it but but yeah at every step of the way it was tied to the land to motherland which is particularly fierce in that part of the world in one of the earlier learning labs on the health track there was this conversation around how we experience our environment and the comment was made it's not just a visual or ocular experience but it's a whole body experience and I got that sense watching watching the film and seeing the women farming, fishing going to the going to the graveyard the Easter mass they celebrated it really was a whole body experience and I'm interested because you're working in this intersection of place and how people interact with place and be interested in hearing your thoughts about how people react to place and perhaps what that means for people like preservation is to care about places and the like I think place has so much to do with how you orient yourself in the world there was a really touching and very I just caught this line in the film that when I watched the full length film it really impacted me and my heart and it was this woman who said when she had been relocated she woke up in the morning and the sun was rising on the wrong side and of course the sun was still rising in the east but it was the wrong side of the building from where she had been used to the sun rising in her home and it really touched me because how we orient ourselves in place and space when we enter a building or a courtyard or a plaza or some kind of space we immediately orient ourselves we use multiple senses not just our eyes but and when we're navigating through streets and when we're orienting ourselves in a new city and trying to figure out where we are and where does the sun rise in the city and oh there's this mountain so I know that that's west and when we don't have those orientation points we feel very out of sorts and I think this is a little bit of an orientation point now and I think actually just as an aside having the map in your pocket is actually really good for planners because now people are so much more oriented to place in a map kind of way but it has everything to do with your health and everything to do with your sense of security and your sense of stability to walk into a place whether it be an entire landscape or a building and be able to orient yourself whether if it's so new and you're so not used to it then you feel destabilized and I think that has an impact it could have a short term stress impact but if it's over the long term that stress is going that chronic stress is going to have an impact on your health I'd be interested in Bonnie and Nico sort of picking up on that if this is true about the whole body experience what does that mean for how preservationists think about environments where it's very clear preservationists should strive to save those places that give the maximally healing whole body experience to a large variety of viewers now unofficial experiments show that as far as positive whole body experience 90% of different people agree completely that a particular place has very high degree of whole body experience so as I said with individuals people from different cultures people from different socioeconomic backgrounds will agree with 90% that this place is yes as a tremendously healing experience and of course that's the place that has to be saved by all these mechanisms the same people will agree that another place has very low degree of healing experience if not to create anxiety in which case there's no reason to save such a what are some of the features of those places where 90% of the people agree that it's a positive experience well as a two part question the first and best test is a neurological test where we wire up subjects with body monitors and then they measure the body's responses if it's positive if it's negative it creates anxiety stress flight of fight syndrome so that's the best scientific test a second and totally different way of judging it is to use mathematical criteria developed by Christopher Alexander and myself so instead of doing the experiments you just evaluate the structure and the biophilic qualities and you have a checklist and then you look at the fractal qualities of the environment and the applicability of certain geometrical patterns and that gives you a clear indication of whether it's healing or the opposite Bonnie? Yes David I was thinking about the work that we do and knowing that place is important to people is really intrinsic I think we all know in our hearts that and can see people that we work with on a daily basis are tied to these places when we get those calls thousands of calls from people every year it's because they love and they are tied to their places and that losing them comes with a sense of mourning but it's harder for us to give a voice to why sustaining that place in a scientific way we don't have the science yet or the metrics or the narrative to talk about and that's why Collie's film helps us is to give us more of that narrative rather I think we've become so used to talking about loss of place and we grieve with people and how many of you have gone through a really challenging preservation battle and we are battle torn and coming out of that in a place that we may have never used ourselves or known it becomes something that is beloved because we were there with people on a day-to-day basis and so I think we feel a sense of mourning and loss with them and I give you an example here locally of how we've come to know that yesterday I went out with a field session to talk about public housing in Chicago and our specific story in Chicago is that we had 25,000 units of public housing built and in 2000 the Chicago Housing Authority determined that the best approach to remake housing was to demolish almost all of it and the displacement generational displacement of people has a physiological mental effect on them through generations so I think the University of Chicago was actually studying that change in DNA which will indicate how multiple displacement events in the family can profoundly impact them and their sense of security and identity for generations to come. I'm glad you brought up about displacement and Holly mentioned it in her talk as well because it's a key issue here and I wonder if as preservationists we need to be thinking more about the tools to try and make sure that communities are not displaced with the work we do and be interested in Holly, maybe you could start talking about displacement in general and how you saw that the impacts of that with the residents of the zone and then we can talk a bit about how preservationists are reacting to that and maybe how we can build some new tools. Yeah, I think it's interesting to think about it regionally too because as an American I've moved maybe 20, 25 times of my life, I have a closer connection to my laptop than any piece of soil which is probably the case for a lot of us here but in other regions and in other countries and communities it's really different and so yes we often talk about loss but it's interesting to think about it as building from the start if we are moving as we're moving forward building in some of that but I mean having spoken to the women who were not displaced and to the women who were displaced what I heard in the displaced people was just still immediate visceral sadness about not being where they were from, one group of women their village was one of the villages that was buried at the time of the accident completely buried, it didn't exist they didn't have the option of going home so they were put into a village it's the sort of self-created place a lot of them experienced discrimination being Chernobylites as they're called some communities didn't want them there so they would become these sort of satellite quickly constructed villages anyway the idea was that yearning and that brokenness never left after the case 50 years for these folks I was talking to you so it's the long game it's the long game Anna are you seeing work at the APA to try and deal with issues of displacement either to keep it from happening or where it's happened to deal with those who are displaced that's been successful it is a huge issue and there was actually an amazing session on this yesterday about gentrification and displacement here at this conference which if you didn't catch it I hope it was recorded it was really good and it's really hard to cite success stories I think that there's pockets of success stories of cities identifying ahead of time that there is starting to be speculation in a neighborhood for example and thinking about we better get ahead of this and try to ensure that there are policies in place or at least some kind of ordinance that requires if any new builders come that they have to include a certain percentage of affordable housing in the new units that they're building for example but that's really in small pockets I know there's a project in Denver that's done really well with that with revitalizing a neighborhood and ensuring that the residents I believe it's called Sun Valley that lived there before are still living there and still can afford to live there and don't have to pay exorbitant taxes etc on their homes even though there's tons of new construction and new residents coming in but it's a huge struggle and I think we need to be thinking more about creative financing mechanisms that planners together with financiers and thinking about other creative sources of funding to ensure that people can remain in their homes and don't get displaced and pushed out by some of these very significant market forces and actually the flip side of that is something else I've been thinking about that Mollye touched upon which is immigrants coming to places so we're concerned about people being displaced from the neighborhoods that they've lived in for generations but we're also dealing with many of our places across the United States we're dealing with the influx of new Americans and how to deal with them and all of the social challenges that come with that so I think together these are really really challenging questions that planners to be honest have a number of tools but have not come up with a system for approaching it it really has to be this is where planning is hyper local it really is a place to place and you can replicate policies but you have to adapt as well and I know on that last point preservationist can play a role in this the Lower East Side Tenement Museum which is a National Trust Historic Site in New York City has been working on immigrants coming in and helping that transition just there coming in I think that's part of what we're talking about we've only got about 5 minutes left I want to just make sure we get a couple of things and this probably could be an hour conversation but Nikos I wonder if you could just touch on briefly what you know about the connections between mental health and physical health and that well-being from the work you've been doing well mental health is intricately linked to physical health the state of the body is determined by all these systems that we have the nervous system, the homo-moral system that is influenced by the neurological input that we obtain all the time that creates a state of the body that will either weaken the body and make it sick or it will reinforce the body and help it to fight external pathogens so there is no separate systems it's one system that has different subsystems like in your car everything has to work together everything does work together well I'm going to ask everyone sort of a final question and we're obviously learning a great deal about health and well-being and we're just starting to apply it to older places, older buildings, older communities what are the questions that we should be asking as a preservation community to learn more about the connections and where we how we can focus on the benefits of older buildings and if there are shortcomings of those places as well I'm going to ask you Bonnie, you can start with that one I'll be happy to jump off and start us off with the I think the question that we always need to be asking are who are the partners with whom we can work to better understand how our collaborative role can have impact because we don't necessarily have to become experts in public health to have a significant and role full of impact in this area and I wanted to take a moment to again give a practical application of this in that we've just begun working with the Department of Public Health here in the City of Chicago which put together a very ambitious plan called Healthy Chicago 2.0 I know Nick Prashant is in the audience who helped to author that plan and there's Nick right there and he and his colleagues looked at the indicators of health which you would expect to see to do and they looked at the built environment as a specific having a role and being an indicator of health and so we've started to partner with them on place based initiatives that are pertaining to especially the significant and increased levels of lead in young children of color in the City of Chicago because they tend to live in housing that is not maintained sometimes absentee land lordship and is aged so it has a preponderance of lead based paint which we know a lot about so we can play a role in helping to advise about the remediation of lead based paint in a way that also protects the historic integrity to give an authentic place to that identity in the community but also looking at ways to create job creation around this industry as well so that would have a positive impact on wealth creation in the neighborhood so just to say that's one example of where I think we can contribute and be partners I want to thank all of you for this very exciting and thought provoking conversation it's been terrific and I want to ask all of you to continue the conversation at our learning labs and online at Pass Forward and we really appreciate you being here round of thanks to our responders