 Thanks very much and very hard to beat that. We've got such a little time left. Gautam and I are going to ask one question and then take some questions from the floor and then perhaps add a couple more and then collect your answers at the end so we get as much participation as possible. So the question from both of us is for you to think and particularly the panel who haven't spoken yet, for you to just say how you engage with the notion of inclusivity. And I think from me, the question to the panel, is are there any areas of inclusivity we haven't captured or we've missed? Do you want to add a question at this point? No. Athinde, would you like to start yourself? I'm going to start by, throughout the two days, I took notes as we were discussing. And in relation to inclusivity, I think we did talk about a number of issues that could have been expanded but are already in the types of things that we are, we have been talking about. One of the first things I remember, we talked about a city for all by all. And if we kind of dig deep at the meaning of that, it really brings in the issue of inclusivity. But the questions that we haven't kind of gone deep is to say a city for whom, by whom, who speaks for whom, who makes those kinds of decisions, what kinds of platforms, what kinds of spaces do we create for people to intervene? And for example, it was a bit shocking for me in one of the panels, I think it was this morning or I think end of the morning, in which you say, oh, we are doing a city for all, we are doing this, et cetera. But how, how are we doing this? It's easy to just say we are doing it, we want to be inclusive. But what are the specific processes? How do we go about doing those things? And I was happy to see, for example, what Omar was saying about Cairo and the specific things you did after the 2011 events. How do we map out the ways in which informality is operating, the ways in which people are thinking are using the space? And I think those kinds of issues, that's where we have to dig deep. I think no one will come out and say, we don't want inclusive cities, but what does it really mean? How do we operationalize that? And then we talked about endogenous cities, that we have to have organic transformations. What does that mean? We also talked about the incomplete city. Who's going to complete it and how? And Gautam, you talked about temporality. How fast do we go? How slow do we go? And who takes that time and how is the city is built? So those kinds of issues that really help us to kind of reflect deeper on these issues. And we talked also about cities as open systems. What does that mean? And who's going to operate within those open systems, et cetera. So I could go on and we talked about social geographies of inequality. And how do we go about breaking those geographies of inequality and making our cities more inclusive? And also for whom are we doing that? For example, one issue that I'm not going to kind of come back with the issue of youth, you all know what I think about it. But there are specific groups that we need to pay attention when we think about cities. For example, issues of security and protection for women in cities. Issues of violence. Issues of domestic violence. Even when we're thinking about housing, how do we create spaces that are conducive to security, to protection of people? And I remember when we did the visit to one of the projects, one of the condominiums. Women were not asked about how the kitchen should look like to prepare the injera. And then all of a sudden there was this communal kitchen that nobody used because people didn't want to share how much do they cook, whether they eat lamb or chicken, et cetera. It was something more private. But how do we go to people? How do we bring people in? So those are the kinds of processes that I think we need to pay attention to. Thank you very much, Alson. Beth? I'm just going to say a few words to, I think, build on the presentation that Omar gave of our work in Cairo and speak a little to some of the other comments. And I think Raul had made a comment about taking a humble approach to realities on the ground. And as a very small civil society organization working in Cairo, I think that's been of the most important to us because there really is this question of what kind of an impact can we make and how can we operate, especially given the changing circumstances on the ground. So one of the things that we have done is to look at these small scale interventions and, again, to think strategically about where can we make an impact. So looking at the passageways is one example of working in an interstitial space, which they could be conceived of as back alleys or junk spaces, but to think about them as a network of potential public spaces and then to undertake a pilot design process that is public participatory in nature and is thinking about how can we create a more inclusive, accessible public space and do it on a very small scale. And then we have seen the government since then has done a couple of other pilot redesigns of passageways in downtown. So that's one way in which we are able to operate. And I think also this question of temporal design, so also working in these interstitial moments. So we have been operating in Cairo over a period of time where there's been obviously great change. At one point there was a real openness, and now we're seeing this return to order and as, again, small organizations that are vulnerable to these kinds of changes on the ground. How can we create networks? I think this has been very important and also forums where we can introduce some sort of public participatory process. And I would say forums, even like the ones that we're a part of right now, we've seen that this has made a big difference in Cairo. We have hosted a number of conferences. I know Galtam had come to one of the early ones that we had done because there really is no place for people to find out what's happening in their neighborhoods or to have a say in what's happening in their neighborhoods. So as a small organization, that is something we can do is just to create space for people from civil society, from the private sector, and from the government to sit together and also to open that conversation up to the public. And I think we've seen the importance of that also here today. So I think maybe unless there's anything you want to add to that, Omar, I'll just stop with those few examples. Professor. Having listened to all of these important things that have been said, particularly the abstract and theoretical ones such as the absolute relationship between the absolute and the transitory, and things that things that things are not static, but changing, I feel I have to say a few things about this about my observation. Change is not always positive. Development doesn't happen very smoothly. In Ethiopia's case, in Addis Ababa's case, from spontaneous from a city that emerged spontaneously to a planned city, to a more modern city. But these things, as they happen, there are certain things that we are losing. That is, among others, the inclusivity. That is the mix in functions, in types of people that live in different neighborhoods, and the means of transportation, the mixed types of transportation from the animal hoof to the rather modern means of transportation. All these are being lost. And as we are losing them, we are also losing, together with these things, the solidarity that existed in the communities in the neighborhoods. Now are emerging neighborhoods of the well to do the middle income ones and the low income neighborhoods. Such things didn't exist because of the poverty, because of the underdevelopment of the economy. People were interdependent. They lived together. And there was no neighborhood that belonged exclusively to one ethnic group or one religious group. And all these things were beautiful. They made Addis Ababa a beautiful city. But they are being lost. And now, because of the fast rising rentals and price of housing, people are chasing their tenants. And then they are being chased away themselves. So there is such a mobility in the city that, in some cases, people don't know their neighbors. They live among strangers because of this fast mobility. And what is important is, in spite of even the pro-poor government policies that are practiced, still the market forces are so powerful that the housing and so on and so forth end up in the hands of the well to do. So poorer people are being pushed out to the peripheral areas. And this means more travel time. It means more money to be put for the mata, too, and so on. So all these things is making life unbearable for the very poor, in spite of all sorts of actions taken to mitigate them. Thank you. Thank you very much for serving us. I think that we've done, I think this panel has been really remarkable in putting down some of the core kinds of conversations we hadn't quite gotten to so far. Questions of aspirations and values are now very firmly in place. It's not just about how you do things, but how we, as collectives and peoples, decide what to do and which fights to pick on. And I think that also, Edgar opened yesterday with the idea of complexity and diversity as outcomes in the center of his diagram. And now we've got a sense that that diversity is not, as the professor is saying, always celebratory. It's also conflict. It's also trade-offs. It's also fights. It's also power. And the one good news that we certainly have is that we've held on to our 20 minutes of open audience time. So we're going to turn to the audience, and I'm going to leave my question as the first question and then collect them out. And the question I have, one, is Omar for you and for Ulrich. I wanted to, I was very struck by this idea of scale that you're both referring to. The phrase that you used was, we focused on the corners. And so it's not just a question of a small practice because you have both the mayor and the street-paced architect talking about the small corner. So how do we start talking about the small in a different way where we actually aren't diminishing the scale in which it's producing our fabric? And I think somewhere we're getting into this debate about the big and the small, the massive and the incremental. And perhaps we should take out the massive small that Kessia said yesterday a little bit more seriously. So if you could reflect a bit on scale, I think a little bit in terms of practice. And Mayor Sawa, I wanted to, I was struck by a slight contradiction in your presentation. I wanted to push a bit, which was you very frankly said that politicians tend to look at the informal sectors in nuisance because the formal sector is easier to engage with. Yet in the middle of a lot of your work is the engagement with the markets, the engagements with a lot of the actual work that people in Accra are doing. But in the last slide, we went back to the idea of the underground economy. And so I'm struck by this contradiction. And I wanted to maybe push you a little bit to think about taking seriously what would it take for us to really move our conversation about informality now from these languages of parallel and underground and black to real questions of productive and thriving and again, massive small. And with that, we are going to look for hands. I see one right in front of me and I'll take that here. Hi, I'm Sasha Daz from ETH Zurich from Switzerland. And I would like to address one question that Joe was addressing maybe something, talking about something that we might have missed when we talk about inclusive cities. And this is not only because of my background from Switzerland but also the research we do at our chair, which is the cooperative principle. And I counted the numbers during this conference, it was mentioned maybe two or three times, but we believe that it's a tremendous, tremendous model and opportunity to take on this model because it's basically a democratic, democratically run business model, which addresses a lot of issues that have been being discussed in these two days of about housing, how do you address the issue of housing? We have a lot of cooperative housing that deliver very good housing at a very low price that's happening all around the world, but probably not at its full potential. And it also expands in other sectors. There are cooperative insurances, cooperative banks and they're all driven by the people, they're one vote, one share, they're controlled by the people who run it and who produce the products. So I think we have to talk about the global flows and investments, but addressing the domestic market, the cooperative model, I think, has to be on the table of any policy decision and it has to be enabled from top down so that the bottom up can use it as an opportunity. Thank you. We'll discuss that last sentence, but thank you. My name is Meg Bartholomew, I'm from PWC. I also work with LSE Cities and I just wanted to ask, we've heard a lot about inequality from kind of the bottom up perspective. We've touched a little bit on the kind of excess at the other end and actually Samir actually mentioned it earlier kind of talking about finance in terms of we have minimum standards for space, but we don't actually have any maximum limits. So is it time to actually start thinking about a maximum limit? My name is Chukwa Mekar, I'm an architect from Nigeria and currently a doctoral candidate at the Department of Architecture, University of Loven in Belgium. My question is on the term informality. We've seen the majority of the economic systems happening in the African city is basically termed as informal. And so I think this is a misnomer. What is this informality? Why is this informal? Whose definition is this informality? So I think I'm trying to ask how could we transcend this dichotomous thinking and to be able to also focus on the hybrid where these two come together because I think it's in the heart of this inclusivity. Thank you very much. Thank you. I found these presentations fascinating, but I'm wondering if we couldn't widen the way that we're thinking about inclusion. The thinking about the way that this whole approach to urbanization is fundamentally shifting the terms of inclusion. And I thought it quite interesting in a benevolent and well meant way of looking at inclusion through the corners, but has our thinking about inclusion been pushed into the corner so we can only talk about inclusion in the corners that nobody wants, the abandoned spaces. And thinking about how power shapes inclusion even in those corners, again, including stakeholders and discussing things and creating beautiful spaces, but spaces that replaced street traders with trees and the livelihood implications that that has in African cities where the street traders are also very important to think about and at a wider level about the way that the whole financial framework is shifting the terms of inclusion. In the last session, we talked about how do we include the private sector? Well, in the old days, we included the private sector by taxing them, but now we're talking about taxing citizens in cities in which 70, 80% of them are working in the informal economy and including the private sector by bringing them in to make a profit. So the terms of inclusion financially have been fundamentally shifted. So I'm wondering if we might think about inclusion at the greater level. How is urbanization and this high capital way of thinking about the city changing the terms of inclusion? You have an excellent set of questions. My best wishes to you all. I am going to ask you because we would love to go back for another set, so I'm gonna ask you just to be tight. Omar? Okay, I'm gonna try to combine some questions. One of the things that was really clear during the discussion the last couple of days is what's so specific about African cities in urbanization? To my view, there's something about scale, you know, the pace of urbanization, number of people, age group, but there's something about governance and I think unlike cities in Europe and North America, which is mostly more regulated and relatively more stable, the cities in Africa with generalization are more in the state of the making, more dynamic and that creates possibilities because these streets as we see it is more contested and negotiated and that creates opportunities for working on the street level that is not necessarily available in cities in Europe. And that means that when you look at informality not necessarily as an anomaly or something bad, but it's actually the main driver of urbanization. So when we look at why we work on a small scale in the loopholes, I think for us it's a political agenda because since the revolution is no longer possible in the long term, at least in our case, the only possible mode of practice is work within the loopholes, within the system, within the cracks, both geographically and politically. So to develop subversive tactics on a street level that could also be politically a measure to introduce change without necessarily calling it a change. And that's also very important. So in the case of street vendor, we're not really replacing street vendor and what we learned during the first research project is that informality has a lot of potential but it also has this problem because it's unregulated. Informality is also, is a very conservative proposition because it's private actors who pursue private interests and without necessarily bringing an instrument to advocate the public good, it could very, we could very much fall into a very new liberal paradigm unintentionally because informality is the flip side of, to my view, new liberal paradigm because it's about the withdrawal of the state. So in the short term, we need to work with it in the next generation or two because this is really the reality of our cities but in the long term, we have to really reclaim a democratic and strong state to advocate the public good and I think that I would like to hear. Yeah, I just wanna add one thing which is that as Omar mentioned, we did an extended research and design work specifically about the street vendors in downtown and we had also made some design proposals to create more inclusive streetscape that might be able to support the street vendors continuing to have space along the, both the main streets and the back alleys but I will say that we are working in a context where also you wake up in the morning, as Omar mentioned, you have the police, you have the military, the street vendors were very much evicted by force in a fairly overwhelming top down manner and there's very little, unfortunately, that we're able to do in this context so we do what we can in terms of our design propositions but the context in which we're working with the garden that we showed in the back alleys, it was not a situation where we were displacing the street vendors, I would like to be clear about that. So I'm gonna try to respond to all the questions in a sense and I think for me listening to the questions, the scalar question is a critical one. We tend to, I think, interrogate questions like inclusivity at one scale and the small scale is where it's demonstrated the most clearly, strategically for all the reasons, Omar, that you pointed out. I think the challenge for us is to see how we can interrogate this across scales which means what is the middle scale, what's the regional scale, what's the national scale and I think you have to do that simultaneously. So therefore one then has to construct a kind of ecological thinking because you can't think of infrastructure or mobility or street improvement separated from each other and so the question is I think for practice, how does one construct a form of practice that can engage with this broader ecology simultaneously, this is a massive challenge and so when we talk about why informal, I mean I use the word kinetic, I call the state of our cities in the majority world a state of kinetic urbanism because it's about incrementalism, it's about elasticity, it's about the appropriation, deappropriation, reappropriation of spaces which is all very clear in what you formulated Omar. So it's also to do with and Gautam speaks to this terminology, how we create the rubrics and then we become slaves of those rubrics and so I think partly it's contingent on us to develop a vocabulary which is much more appropriate for our condition and I think that's also a challenge and so I think I just wanna sort of go to this idea of practice, practice across scales, practice that is interdisciplinary, practice that straddles the small scale with the large scales and inherently creates feedback loops. I think those feedback loops are missing and unless we have that in our practice, I don't think we can deal with the ecological imagination and so I think true activism will come from that feedback loop and the way I would frame it is I think we'll finally have overlap because I think what's happened is our spheres of concern are completely detached from our spheres of influence and how do you make these overlap? I think we have to address scale and we have to create these feedback loops within a broader ecological imagination. Thank you very much. Yes sir. Thank you very much. I think that you spoke about the contradiction in my statement at my presentation on how I perceive informality. I was trying as much as possible to expounce the views of politicians in my city and not necessarily representing my personal view because my personal view was more illustrated in my engagement with that informality and informal communities that we have. Personally, I have worked in an NGO sector for about 20 years, I had engaged broadly and that's what I bring to today. The reason is that in our part of the world and in Accra, a lot of politicians see the informal sector as a nuisance because they are easy prey and they occupy the pedestrian walkways, they live in informal settlements and accessibility is always an issue and it becomes a tough time for politicians who are very impatient in engaging to describe them as a nuisance and that's the kind of thing that I wanted to present to you. And I also was trying to be as much blunt as possible and not to romanticize the issues by coining some words and jargons that would describe the situation because it is important for us to appreciate the contribution of the informal sector which I think that most political leaders tend to overlook and it comes back to heat assets all the time. And I want to tie in your question that she asked earlier about what are we missing? I think that in all the issues that we have spoken about housing, mobility, urban issues, local economic development and all these issues, we need to appreciate the fact that we are working and operating in a political and environment in a certain governance structure and all these issues must be catapulted by these political environment in which we operate. If the political environment is very oppressive and it's not open-minded, you will get a backlash on some of these things and that's the kind of challenge that we face in Africa and especially in our crowd. What kind of political environment are we operating? For instance, you have four years as a political leader. You come into office, your first year, you are a bit unsettled. You get settled by the second year but the third year you are going for an election. So what drives voter decision is what you are thinking about as a political leader. And because by the fourth year, it's everything that you do is politics and you have to focus on that in order not to lose another election. So we need to appreciate the kind of political environment in a governance structure that we have, that it's also affecting the kind of decisions that we take as leaders and affecting the informal economy as a whole. Thank you, great questions. Just on maybe to start off on what Gautam, what you've framed on the value of the small. I think for Leipzig, although we might appear as the rich guy on the block, I mean, at the time it was a question of focusing the intervention of focusing the resources and also to not think about entire districts but think about that corner house and think about the street artery. And in fact that it's much easier to focus on the district because you have data for the district and you don't have data for the street artery. And so that puts sort of when you wanna sort of justify an intervention along a street artery which might be three kilometers long, you have to pull in data from four districts which creates absolute havoc in the statistical department but which is in the end creates a stable artery and then sort of stabilizes the neighborhood. On the question of how to tame global capital, I think there is sort of a proxy that we could think of East Germany as being in its initial phase in the early 90s as also being subject to inflow of capital, the decision on which we're not made in East Germany. So what did Leipzig do? I think the first thing the new mayor who came in in the early 90s said, we need to have a zoning plan. Sounds mundane but many other East German cities didn't have the same rigor in the zoning plan. And also I think what they very successfully did in the 90s, they enforced the building code. They enforced also the requirement that in the inner city there is a 20% share of apartments in any commercial development you have in the inner city. And so that leads to the fact that the inner city is in fact has mixed use of living and commercial use within the inner city. And of course we disgruntled investors because they didn't wanna take these terms. On cooperatives, yes, fully endorsed. In many times we just stifle ourselves in Germany at least with the regulations we impose on any type of activity, be it in terms of accident prevention or be it in terms of data privacy. So that is again the sort of the rule of secondary rules or the role of secondary rules that sometimes stand in the way. And I'd like to share one observation. We've heard some calls made be from Joe but also from the colleague, the professor, sorry, forgot the name over there, on making inclusivity even broader and making it given it even more aspects and more dimensions and so. And I would really argue and I, if you see sort of the three presentations from the mayors and I very much loved, you know, Ariane's radical simplification on children. It is not about adding dimensions, it is about reducing dimensions because it's in politics or anywhere else, your coordination is my complexity. So we can only deal with so much complexity and we don't know in Leipzig if the focus on street corners and the focus on arteries was the right focus, we could have taken a different focus but we took that one. And so I think it's just as, you know, you could have given your policies a different spin, a different narrative and you chose children. And so I think it's also the question of accepting the reduction in complexity and working with that and so. And in that context, I'm calling actually for yes, inclusivity, but choose your dimension and then work along that dimension. Thank you very much. So I, unfortunately, we will not be able to go back to the floor because we do have to close now and I'm gonna hand over to Joe to have the last word and just the one reflection that I wanted to leave on the table is, I think that one of the people that I learned how to be political from once told me that you have to first actually admit to yourself that you're going to pick a fight. And I think that it is very interesting to hear from this set of table that has such diverse locations from where they practice to each talk about disgruntled voters, upset constituents, itinerant policemen, capital investors, threatening to go take the Amazon headquarters to some other city. And I think that that question, it takes us back to that question of when do we know we're making a difference? And often we actually know we're making a difference when someone pushes back because then you know you've got a finger on some structural purpose. And I think it takes me back to the question that went unanswered on the question of the informal. There is a deep history to how that word was wielded and it was actually not wielded by people from the outside. It is one of the few words that was wielded by workers. And if you look at the history of one of the largest federations of informal sector workers, which is WIGO, Women in Informal Employment Globalizing and Organizing, it is WIGO who changed the mind of the International Conference of Labor Statisticians and forced the ILO to conduct and produce the data that it produces today on informal sector work. And it is one of the best examples of massive small that I know. The fact that the International Labor Organization forces every country's labor force surveys to document and measure informality from domestic workers to street vendors to waste pickers to federations is because the word informal was wielded against the invisibilization. Now at some point that word will run its life. But every movement for social change has had words they have wielded as weapons, whether the word queer was taken back by sexuality movements, whether the word feminist was taken back by women's movements, and the word informal has that history. So I think that it may well be time to ask if the battle has changed again, but there is a history to where it came from and it didn't come from the top. Thanks, Gautam, and I'm not going to detain you very much longer, but I just wanted to conclude by saying once again that when we're looking at cities and inclusive cities, we're talking about people, and there are lots of different kinds of people, including around this table. And I think all of us can work within the parameters of our institutions and so on, and our areas to do what we can. I really take on board what you say, or I move from the academy into being a manager and leader, and you do have to narrow down. And I think if I go back to my opening comments about 1996, we were multiplying identities and arenas for inclusion and perhaps unhelpfully. What I've taken from this session and slightly more broadly is that we still haven't cracked the nut of processual and organizational inclusion. It's what Edgar Peters asks, why is participatory development so damned hard? And I think we haven't cracked that. We were grappling with it a long time ago. We still are. I think what I've taken very positively from this session is this notion of both spatial and temporal inclusion, taking from what Omar and Beth have said about spatial interstices and the cracks and the loopholes as a bottom-up way of working with space. And then what we have to grapple with is how you then marry that or contest or collaborate or accommodate or collude or whatever you do with the massive rapid developments that are going on along the temporal lines of what we heard about yesterday which is never ways to good crisis. So I think it's how you marry those two things in the way you think about inclusive cities. And similarly, the interstitial moments linked to never ways to good crisis, how you look at temporality around inclusion and when those moments are going to be more inclusive and undermine everything you've driven for. So I would only disagree with you on one count in terms of adding inclusions and that would be the digital one because in 1996 we didn't even have the internet and now we're talking about inclusion and apps and everything else. So that's the one that I would say is very different from then. But can I ask everyone to join me and Khartim in thanking the panelists and the speakers and indeed all the questions from the audience. Thank you.