 We saw this in the urban age, when we began at the very beginning of our travels in New York, to look at the difficulties of the downtown New York financial district, in trying to adapt itself to become a residential center, rather than a financial center. Again, when we were in Shanghai, we heard from our colleagues in Shanghai, a lot of anguish about the fact that by a Shanghai had moved from being a manufacturing to a service economy city, the buildings that had been put up to serve that immediate world of manufacturing proved very difficult to retrofit or to adapt to the world of services. So, I would say that my second version of the Hippocratic Oath leads to what may seem to you to be an odd conclusion, that in order to do no harm, we should not fit formal function perfectly. That is, we want to seek for forms which are ubiquitous, whose empty duties mean that change can occur in a physical fact. The final way in which I think we can become good Hippocrates has to do with the issues of public space. And here for me, as your own father, I was very struck by the discussions that I and my colleagues have in both Johannesburg and Mexico City. What they told us was that basically our thinking about public space applies 20th century models to a 21st century problem. I was particularly moved by this by talking to planners in Johannesburg, who had emerged from a long period of racial and ethnic segregation to face the problem of how do they get their city together. And the challenge that they offered to us was that we needed to think more about the edges of public space and less about its centers. That we needed to think about borders, edges between different economic as with different racial groups, rather than looking into the centers of community. I was very moved that the chief, the woman was another chief planner, Soweto, said to me, I don't want to look inward anymore, I want to look at the edge and see what's beyond Soweto. There's a terrific challenge in my life. It is by looking outward that we give up some of the mindset that's involved in centralization, which is looking to those parts of public space in which identity seems fixed or coalesced. The center of community, particularly local community, is a place where people who are like each other can be matched together to see each other, to recognize each other as members of the same community. While the border condition is one where you lose that kind of definition. But what we were being impressed to do by our colleagues was to try to imagine the condition in which we put resources and thought about the public realm lying at that borderline where identity is lost. I was very moved yesterday when Charles Correa gave an example in Mumbai of the kind of discussions that we had in Johannesburg in Mexico City. He described something very simple, which is people of two different castes sitting down side-by-side in a bus transport. People who normally wouldn't have been in each other's presence. If you were an accurate reporter, you said that they didn't talk, but they were with each other. And it's that kind of probability, which I think in urban design we need to search for. It means a profound change in mindset, words like community become less important than words like recognition. It's a profound mindset. It means, however, that we might begin to deal with the ultimate problem of inequality in cities. Which is that as it proceeded so far, inequality tends to produce a kind of economic, if not racial, apartheid. And designers can do something about that. We can do it by putting resources that we design schools, health clinics, shopping malls, not in the center of places, but at their edge. We can't erase the inequality, but we can counterfeil against it. So my third rule for the third version of the hegecrocratic group is simply that contact matters more. So these are some thoughts I have as somebody involved in the practice of urban planning and urban design. About how by observing these three rules, these three hegepocratic rules, we might at least sensitize ourselves to the fact that modern city, localized city tends increasingly to forms of inequality which segregate, which separate, and which rendered us with the word that was used this morning, which rendered a mass of people invisible to those who have a power. Correspondingly, those who have a power are not taking responsibility for the conditions in the city as a whole. That is the problem of capitalism. We can't solve it, but by becoming sensitive, we can counterfeil against it a little, and certainly we can do no harm. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Richard. We count on you, Richard, as one of those thoughtful design people. Unfortunately, this may sound theoretical, you are a rarity. I wish more architects and designers talked about the need to understand inequality and the need to understand and be comfortable talking about race and talking about ethnicity and difference, because those are often important variables that are overlooked and ultimately drive some of the very anti-poor development that we see.