 Thanks for coming, everybody. I've butted in a little bit to get to, I wouldn't say introduce, but intercede a little bit before our panel gets started on A Place in the Sun about the work of Charles Correa. I asked to jump in because I wanted to let you know how important I think the work is and this gathering and how related it can be to Roger Williams. Certainly Rahul and Nandita are known around the world for their work and for Nandita's father's work and legacy. But something I think is really important, and I try to say it whenever I can. Some of you may have heard me talk about Hassan a little bit and about the kind of opening of the world of architecture starting in the late 20th century, which I guess for you all seems like a time ago that you may not remember. But it's really important to know that this work and the kind of beginnings of the whole world being aware of it really was, in large part, championed by people like Hassan among a handful of people around the world in association with the Aga Khan. But Hassan wrote a book, or started a magazine, which I found interesting as I've shared with several people the other day in going to college in St. Louis in architecture. We learned that modern architecture was in Europe and a little bit in the US. We didn't hear much about American architecture. We certainly didn't hear about places where Nandita and Rahul are from. And like India or Asia, pretty much at all, Japan was making a bit of an inroads in a magazine called A-plus-U. And it just was not known. And not only buildings, but how people lived or what our shared or different aspirations were. And this interesting guy, Hassan a Din Khan and some others had this great opportunity and vision to literally start looking at architecture in Asia and Africa and share conversations about that around the world. And it seeped in through little periodicals in different architecture libraries around the world. And everybody started looking. And now I think the plurality of things that we have access to is certainly real and the kind of elegance and simplicity and sensitivity of somebody like Charles Correa. We may or may not know of, but I think we can. I hope we know of, but hopefully tonight will be a great reintroduction or introduction. But it kind of had its origins at a certain time and place and Hassan was part of that. And Charles Correa certainly was doing it among others. And so I just wanted to put that in there because I think sometimes we don't know how the world got to be that we're in. And we're not always around people who shape it as much as it's been shaped for the better. And we certainly are around those people today. So Hassan will kick us off with a panel with Nandita Correa, Morotra and then we'll have a lecture by Rahul a little bit later on. Thanks very much. Well, thanks for that introduction. Oh sure. Yeah. What I might do is we have two of the people here who know Charles very well, Nandita who is an architect, they're both architects. Both studied at some place in Cambridge. Just north of. Just north of us. Same place that Nate studied in. Isn't it? You're all at Harvard. And they're practicing architects and have worked, they live in the States. So they worked in the States, they worked in India a great deal. And we're lucky to have both of them here. We've been trying to get Rahul and Nita here for ages but I'd like to just say a few words about Charles on a very personal sort of note, if I may. And then you can talk about the real stuff, okay. I guess I met Charles in about 1978 in Iran of all places. And he's on a competition jury for Shastan Balvi. The library. The library, there. And I met him and I felt very ill. I was sick at that time. And Charles, and that I'm Renata Holland who I was traveling with, came by and sort of sat by my bed and talked. And this is the first time I've seen this architect. I knew, had known of him but I didn't know much about him. But I got to know him from that time onwards. And he didn't join the Akhan Award for Architecture. The Akhan was setting up an award which is one of the biggest architectural prizes. Both these people here have been involved with it. You're on the steering committee this year, right? The jury. The jury, sorry, you're on the jury. And Rahul's been on both. And on the technical review, so-called, which used to be called technical review. Which I did in the previous cycle. Which you did as well. So the people who've been involved with the Akhan and the Akhan Award as I have for a long time too. And they were really part of this new journey that we took. Which Steve talked about. And we took a lot of journeys. I got to know not only Charles, but Monica, Korea, his wife, who used to travel with him. So we would go to various conferences around the world. We went to not strange places. Yeah, we did. We went to China, we went to Zanzibar. We went all over Europe. We went through events, meetings, seminars. It was an amazingly enriching experience. And I got to know both of them to some extent. And Charles was always, besides being a very fine architect, had sort of, I would say, a wicked sense of humor. He would be, he could be not sarcastic, but he could certainly bring up his view of the world and had a very particular way of looking at both architecture and the world itself. And it's a lot of fun to be traveling with him because he's always interesting from that point of view. He was also very good, by the way, at getting people involved in things. When I was traveling with him, he certainly got me involved in a bunch of book projects which I wouldn't have done without him. He was one of the early supporters of MIMAR, the magazine that I ran for a number of years with a number of other people. So in a funny way, I realized much later when he was no longer with us that I actually had an amazing impact on me and what I did and what I do for that matter. So I'm always grateful to what he brought to the field of architecture and in that our parts of the world. So it's really a pleasure. I mean, I've known these two for a long time, too. Probably before you guys were married, for sure. No, definitely, yeah. Long time. She was a young girl. But I remember that red monograph that you did on Charles. That's true. I worked on that, yeah. Yeah, that's right, you did. I did do a book on Charles a long time ago and did a bunch of other, in fact, covered him in several books. And now, by the way, I cover his work in a course that I run here or nation architecture. And he's one of the people I talk about under a strange sort of title of sort of modern regionalism of some sort. The idea that he's a modernist, but he always said all great architecture is regional. And he said, there's no such architectures rooted in place, and that's when architecture really has something that's important to say. You can't just do architecture anywhere in the world, or you can, but it changes depending where you are. So I just want to thank, first of all, both of you and you for helping set up the exhibition. You know, made it possible. And I would also, Nate, by the way, who spent a great deal of effort in getting this exhibition going. And some students, and John, no, a bunch of people, but I think Nate said the designing part of it and you send stuff across and reviewed it. So I would encourage you all, by the way, to look at the exhibition if you haven't, because it's worth it. And we're going to, after the talks, take a walk around with you, if you may, and you could talk about Charles and his work and you could actually see the projects which are really varied in a great range of things and he had a great range of interests, which I think you're going to tell us a little bit about his approaches that he thought was important. So I'm just going to hand it to you at this moment, if I may. Okay. Thanks, also. And these are Korea. Okay. Well, thank you. And I just want to say, also, that I worked with Charles for many years, I think, but 25 years, perhaps I was counting, I just say, hadn't realized it was so long, but it was a long, long time. And so I know the work well, of course, but somehow it's difficult, I think, to synthesize the work while it's yet happening. You sort of need the perspective of time to begin to understand what his career is over, which was six decades long. He started his practice in 1958. So it was sort of 10 years after India got independence. It was a whole new country. It was, you know, and so I, you know, a lot of that shaped what he did, but it was, I mean, a touch also about the exhibition which we sort of sent across over here and, you know, as Hassan was saying, Nate did an amazing job of putting it together, but the words we used to sort of really to curate the exhibition were Charles' own essay that he wrote just a couple of years before he passed away. And so, again, using that perspective of time, he sort of, you know, wrote this essay, which I think you can get copies of, yeah, when you go to the gallery, call Snail Trail. And he describes the themes that sort of come back to him in his work, the ritualistic pathway, moving through the building, the empty center, which was either courtyard or somehow defining the spaces around, you know, the empty center. The non-building, which he felt was very much of Asia and of that kind of warm climate that you could easily move outside the building and then back in. And so the building didn't need to be a freestanding box. It could be much more amorphous than how you use it. So the essay talks about all that. And he said, you know, like the trail that a snail leaves in its wake as it inches forward, so over the years an architect leaves behind a body of work generated by the attitudes. He gradually accumulates towards the agenda he deals with, which is climate, building materials, structural systems, functional requirements, et cetera. So using that sort of analogy, after he passed away, which is like what Hassan was saying, when after someone's gone, you then realize, you know, all the things that perhaps that he did, you know, many, many interests from his interest in publications and then the written word, which he thought was really important, he wrote a lot. And but also his, you know, very large body of work, which as I said was six decades as his practice lasted. So about a year after he passed away, I curated for Charles's foundation, which I now run, it's in India, the foundation, and it looks after his archives and does a lot of other urban projects and stuff like that. I did an exhibition called Buildings as Ideas, which was really looking at his unbuilt work. And since it was the first exhibition after his death, I sort of put together a timeline of those six decades, placing the unbuilt work within the built work in chronological order, just to get us, understand what the ideas were, you know, sort of decade by decade. And it was amazing that the context in which you sort of then view the unbuilt work was became really important because you realize that they were, the sketches and the drawings and stuff became the way the ideas were held because those projects, because they weren't built, they were in a way, they were the pure idea that stayed in those drawings. And so that was a really important sort of exhibition I thought in understanding all this, but we also then began to synthesize what were these themes that went through the work? And so we found these kind of, I would say about six lineages, what I called, which was just these ideas, and in identifying them, which you can do, I think here in this exhibition as well, one major thing was form follows climate, which Charles would often write about it, how the form really was generated by climate. And it's an argument on what shapes architecture for Korea often believed that in form follows climate for him this was a way to make architecture more energy conscious. And this was starting in 1958, he was 28 years old, it was not the buzzword at that time by any means, but it was his preoccupation of starting with these ideas that shaped into very specific architectural approaches evident in the cross section, which often is different forms in different projects, but could be employed across a variety of housing projects irrespective of their size, social scale, and economics of the project. And that was important that very often the low income housing had the same ideas that were generating that as to a house for a very affluent client. And that was very much, Charles said it was like the ideas were so important that he just wanted to push those through the project. So the cross ventilation as well as shading devices and the actual form, and that you can see in the tube house that we have a very nice model and images of the project and a plan and section. To a lot of other projects, the Ram Krishna house, which is also there, some other housing projects like Cable Nagar, a house that he didn't build for himself but he sketched it and wanted to build it for Amdabad, which is a hot dry climate. For Previ, which was the project housing in Lima, which is also in the exhibition. And also in a number of like office buildings, in those days, office buildings weren't air conditioned, one cabin or something maybe air conditioned. So he did one for ECIL in Hyderabad, which had a large sort of pergola in the roof and he allowed for sort of two inches of water, standing water to be on the roof so that that would cool the concrete slab and actually sort of cool the building. At least that's what he sort of experimented with it. It worked for as long as they kept water on the roof, but I know for sure it doesn't. It's not that way anymore. Another thing was the double height verandas and developing this sort of urban typology. He explored the idea of the veranda, which wraps around the living spaces, protecting them from the strong weather conditions. Scaling the veranda to a double height produced an active public space within the stack of homes. And this device resulted in a play with the interlocking cross-section of the individual units. This you can see in several of the apartment buildings, but then in its most sort of magnificent form, I think, in the Kanchenjunga apartment building, which again we have in the exhibition as a wonderful little model of the whole building, but also a cross-section showing you how the interlock works, which is very nice. There's sky lobbies that worked around the basic skip-stop elevator to generate a typology in housing that was more humane and public. By doing the skip-stop, it was much cheaper way of putting in elevators in low-income housing because the elevator didn't stop at every floor. So it stops at every third floor. You either walk up a flight or walk down two flights. I think Sir did this in Peabody Terrison in the Harvard housing that he did for students. But Charles then used the floor that the elevator did stop at as a way to at times make for community space at that level. And that became another kind of development of a typology, which was very interesting. And there's quite a few housing projects with that. The ritualistic pathway, which he talks about in the essay as well, where the courtyards most identified with his over of architecture were indeed key in his thinking as most evident in a set of the projects, which are here, and you can see them where the courtyards are not just spaces between rooms, but are indeed spaces that generate the building because they're part of the program is in the courtyards. So rather than just being additions to the program rooms, the courtyards and terraces, and especially in that climate could be used. And so he used them with light and circulation around. And then there was of clustering, of clustering, not just in housing, which Rahul's gonna talk about, but in office buildings as well, that using a looser arrangement within spaces in the office building, how that could work for circulation of air, for spaces to step out into that were shaded, and that was something that happened in several of the office buildings, which I'll again describe to you in the exhibition. And the last thing was, I think, perhaps an important aspect of Charles's work was what I call buildings as essays. And the intellectual and political urgency within societies which raises debates, generate responses in many forms. And I think here the architect aware of his role as social and cultural practitioner also contributes, and in this case, and with built form ideas, where proposals for the buildings produce an argument of sorts, charting a response that wishes to tap on a creative strength of human society. And there are two projects, one was a kind of think tank for the prime minister of India, where you, the think tank was a courtyard, but you could only get to that courtyard if you went through one of the residential spaces. So you had to be living there for that week or whatever that the think tank was happening and you know, and go through that. So in a way by defining those thresholds, you came into a space that really the courtyard became that central point, but it was more the kind of the sort of argument for creating a space like that. And the same with a design for Ayodhya, which was a much contested and still is a space which both sort of the Hindus and the Muslims feel is part of their heritage. And so how to have a common ground between religions was really important. And Charles felt very importantly that the role and the responsibility of an architect was to use architecture as an agent of change. And that was something that I think perhaps was his legacy among the general public to understand his point of view in his position in society. But I'm gonna turn it to, I just wanna add a couple of things if I may and then pass it on to, two other things strike me about his work. One certainly is, he was a modernist and so he comes from that tradition. He was educated in the States, but went back and practiced in India. And he is, I think one thinks of him as a very much an Indian architect based in India, but he has a sensibility from all around the world. So his work, he experimented a great deal with it. And two things, one was that he used the Mandala in some of his buildings, which was a kind of, it wasn't a game exactly, but it was sort of for the part of that ritual pathway and how people would look at space and how you'd move between spaces. And as you know, the Mandala is a sort of cosmic diagram which has been used in India for centuries and used elsewhere for that matter in other societies. The other thing that I always struck me is that his use of color, and it's always interesting to me that for some reason people in hot climates use lots of color and people in cold climates don't. They always use white or black or gray. And you think they'd be the opposite. You think you'd want some color in cold climates, but it doesn't work. And I remember once we were wandering, we were in Mexico with Charles and with Legoreta, who is the well-known Mexican architect. And we were wandering around, and both he and Charles were having conversations about color, and they went on and they said, they felt really comfortable with each other, the ones from Mexico and the ones from the other, because they both used color and different, and bright colors, the oranges and the reds and the yellows. And they both were wandering around, sort of congratulating each other. And I said that we understand what this is about and what architecture really is. It's about this color, and it's about shadow and shade, as well as the sun. So sun's important, but not part of the world as you've named the exhibition. Really deals with shade as well. So I think this, when you could go on and talk about lots of different aspects of his work, but I think you've outlined some of his major concerns, if you like. But he's got a lot of other ones and experiments that he's done. I would urge you to look at his publications, and we've got a bunch of them here. Yeah, I just brought some, and they're gonna be in the library. Yeah, and his work. And as I mentioned, I think I deal with Charles and my work on the Asian architecture. So some of you have taken that course, and some maybe will do that next semester as well, because I will do that next. But it's that range of things, which is quite extraordinary. And I don't know if you're gonna talk about some of those kinds of things he was interested in. So I'll pass it on to Raul. So I might sort of add some things on having an urbanization because, but you know, I just wanna go back to your introduction, Stephen, and you made a very interesting slip. You said place in the sun instead of place in the shade. No, which is actually very interesting. It's interesting for two reasons. One is that his famous lecture at the Cupid Memorial Lecture before he got the RIVA gold medal was called Place in the Sun. And then he wrote an essay, and which is what this exhibition is based on, or his book, which was a compilation of his essays, which is Place in the Shade. And it's interesting that here, we really wanna make a place in the sun, and in India, we wanna make a place in the shade. It was Chef Ban Kanthakuzino said that it should be called a place in the shade. So that's when we did our... So no, it's interesting, both work, and it's also, in a way, related to your comment about colors, which is really important insight and sort of related to the shade and the sun. You know, I mean, and this is things people have discussed, but I thought it's a good forum to push this a little bit, which is that I think as architects and societies, we architecture historically responds to nature. And so that's where minimalism comes out of Finland, where they only see snow or they'd see no light for six months and the films of Bergman and the brooding skies and all of that. And it's no coincidence that in Malaysia, you don't mind wearing a shirt, which is boutique with flowers coming out of it, which you do very carefully. You might do it in Hawaii, but you'd be very careful doing it in Finland, for example. And so design generally, perhaps is at some deep level influenced by what the natural systems, it's situated in and Barragan and Lugretto, I mean, Barragan's colors come out of Bogenvilla because that's in profusion in Mexico. And so therefore it's these strong colors, which is what those Bogenvilla flowers are. And of course, he's written about it and things. So it's interesting that you made that observation and that Charles, I think, felt confident about using color both because of the sun and because of the tropical kind of climate of India. You both also said two things, which is what I'll pick up on. You, Nandita, ended with the idea of the architect as an agent of change. And Hassan, you sort of alluded to this idea of him being able to slip between the Western education that he sort of was, that he benefited from, in a sense, and the condition in India. And I think that's very important. Both those points are very important to frame his work. And so I think, as I've sort of, I wrote in his orbit that he had a very specific idea of India. And he had an imagination of India when he got back. It was an India of Nehru. It was an India of kind of reinventing the nation in a sense. And modernism as an aesthetic, as an attitude, was very critical in that imagination. But that imagination was constructed in a highly pluralistic way because I think the influences on his work, I mean, you know, Bakht Minister Fula was one of his teachers. He studied with Kepish, who had a particular way of looking at the world. He was influenced deeply by the films of Satyajit Ray, which began to identify without fetishizing, but identify in very deep ways a society that was struggling to become modern. And so I think, and there are many, many more such folks that he was deeply influenced by. And I think his education in the United States at MIT, in particular, equipped him really incredibly well to be able to understand this in an analytical way, which I think was very important, reflecting on his kind of contribution. So he had a very kind of insistive, very aware, very objective reading of the kind of context he was working in. And I think that comes from what you put your finger on, which is the ability to be able to connect with both these worlds and to be able to see what was happening in India from without, without being away from it, but also being immersed very deeply in it. And then I think, Nandita, you picked up this idea of being an agent of change. And I think that's what we can, I think, learn from a practice like Charles Correa's and his contributions, because I think, at least to me, what it really highlights deeply for us is a question that we should all be asking is, what is the agency of architecture and planning and design? We are all engaged with these practices, and I think we struggle with it. We're frustrated often with it because what is that agency? And I think his work really shows us, and of course, it was a particular moment which is different from today, but his work really demonstrates what the potential of that agency can be. And his sort of work, therefore, I think to support that idea was three-folds. One was, it was the production of architecture, which is, I think, what the exhibition shows beautifully, and Nandita touched upon the kinds of themes that existed that nourished the way he imagined the world and the built environment. The other was this ability to reflect, and that, I think, came from his education, and that came from very much an education that the United States provided him, which is to reflect objectively on it and write about it. And I think from that generation, really, he was the only one who produced a body of work, which I would say in some ways is theory, where he reflected upon what he was doing, whether it was a culture he was engaging with, whether at the time when people were talking about form follows function and stuff, he said form follows climate. That was radical for the time, and I think architectural review published that essay for the first time, and then Hassan, of course, picked up on it through Mimar and through other writings. But I mean, I think that was a radical moment where he said, look, it's really climate that form follows, which is a historic truth, actually. And so I think that was very interesting. So there were many writings like this, which are all captured in this book called A Place in the Shade, which Nandita, I think, just gave to your library for students to access. It's a brilliant document of 20 or 30 essays, which span a whole lot of issues, and very interesting, but they tell you how he was struggling with these issues and was writing about them in a way to actually reflect upon it for society, for the community of architects, and all of that. And the third aspect that I think is very important, really, to also contextualize many things that are in the exhibition, and of course the exhibition, you need five times the size to do all of this, but what was his contribution to urbanization? And I think that, again, is related to agency, because I think he deeply believed that the context that you produce the architecture is also something the architect can have influence on. It's not something that we take just for granted. Of course, we should understand it, but we can also change it, and that's why I think she used the word agent of change, and he sort of looked at the city in an important way, sometimes stumbling upon it accidentally. And so he really had great presence and a big influence on how the debate about cities evolved in India. He was not only invited by the Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi to set the first commission on urbanization in 84 that wrote the first policy paper on urbanization in the country, which was a culmination of his many experiences. So his entry into questions of urbanization occurred in 1964, when he, with two of his other colleagues, all in their very early 30s, looked at the development plan of Mumbai, which was published for the first time as a development plan in our post-independence era. Until then, we had town planning schemes that were done incrementally, but in Mumbai, for the first time, Bombay, then the government published the development plan of 1964, and he and his colleagues looked at that and they said, you know, they're proposing Bombay grows in the Northern direction because the railway system was sort of the DNA that was propelling its growth, and they said this was completely incorrect that it should actually go across the bay to Navi, Mumbai, or New Bombay, which was the formulation at the time. And you know, this is also no coincidence because he was at MIT at the time when Siddharth, the Guana, when the Joint Center between MIT and Harvard was at its height. There was a lot of World Bank funding and agencies that were looking at Latin America. So the Chandigarh had happened. And so this optimism that architects could be part of the urban project, I think, gave these young people great confidence to actually make a proposal for a new city. And of course, this is a much more complicated story. It was a letter to the editor in the newspaper reacting to the development plan. The editor of a magazine looks at it and invites these three young architects to produce a whole volume, to elaborate what they were saying that volume has influence within the bureaucracy before you know it, an agency set up to design this new twin town, three million people. It was the largest project for a new town at the time. I mean, Milton Keynes and others were a fraction in terms of the ambition of the population that they were going to house in this sort of new city. And so that sort of led him on a whole parallel trajectory to think about urban issues which resulted in a wonderful manifesto he wrote, which, I mean, Hassan sort of was in some ways part of because Mimar republished the original version. It was called The New Landscape, where he talked about a new landscape that was emerging in terms of how we could understand urbanization and the place in the shade, the book that I was referring to also has an extract from that essay. It has a whole, carries the whole extract from it. And so this urban trajectory was very important in itself because of the influence it had and because suddenly it propelled a kind of new meaning and an edge to what was the agency of architecture and incredibly important. But it was also important for another reason and this sort of connects and falls back to the exhibition, which is that he began to think about housing in very substantial ways. And so in 1961 was the tube house which is in the exhibition, which is a very important project because it changed at least in the Indian context, the debate from what was otherwise government produced three, four storied buildings to a low-rise high-density paradigm. And it was Jane Drew who happened to be on the jury that actually recognized this as being special, that not only was it a wonderful sectional articulation, but getting the low-rise high-density community formation through clusters and all of that was a complete paradigm shift in the Indian context. And of course Chandigarh was happening and there were many such schemes in Chandigarh that obviously Charles Correa was aware of that he changed and that he drew on. And so in 64, a few years after this is when New Bombay happens because he understands you've also changed the context. And that's followed a few years later by the Previ competition, which he gets invited to represent India among a host of international architects, perhaps because of the tube house, because Jane Drew and others suddenly recognized there was talent here and someone thinking about housing. And so Navi Mumbai or New Bombay as an urban plan is sandwiched between these two projects. And I believe you have to look at them as a tripartite to understand how his ideas of urbanism, which was about how mobility can be used to indirectly cross-subsidize housing, how low income housing really needs to be incremental, how you provide the context for housing and let people build. It's not about delivery only. He began to actually populate the debate, which was a debate that was happening internationally. So I'm not arguing that these were all his original thoughts, but he was contextualizing it for India. I mean, John Turner, there was a whole shift in the way housing had to be looked at. It wasn't about delivering the end product, it was seen as a process. And he wrote a seminal essay at that time in the architectural review, which I remember as a student, I came across much later, which was called the self-help city, where he argued that the entire city, like you have self-help housing, you could imagine a city which was self-help. So if the government put in the DNA of infrastructure, housing, which is 90% of the fabric of any city, could be built by people themselves. And so there were again four themes that I think appear very consistently in all his housing work, and that's an interesting lens to look at the housing projects, which was incrementalism, which is that housing had to be incremental, which is life-grows housing. It is not a complete product, and that in economies that are developing, incrementalism is critical in ways investments come into the housing project, which means by nature it has to be moldable, it has to be soft-transformable in order for people to invest as their incomes grow. The theme of open-to-sky spaces, because he felt that in warm climates, a courtyard is as valuable as a covered room, and it comes at no cost except the cost of the land, which people can then build into later if they choose to. The third was the idea of community space, which is an interesting idea, because in housing how aggregation occurs is actually as important as the design of the unit. One finds that is something that's really ignored, because people design the unit and then repeat it relentlessly, thinking you've cracked the code by designing the unit, and architects often have that impulse, and so here he recognized very early that aggregation was as critical, so the effort he put into how community space was formed through the way cluster design occurred was also very important, and so aggregation I think in his projects become something that is worth looking at seriously, and the last was a recurring theme, which is climate, and how the house itself, how community spaces can be molded in a way to respond to climate, which could be hot and wet or hot and dry, they're dramatically different, and I think the projects that he did kind of span across all of this, and so I mean I think he did a book called Housing and Urbanization, recognizing that housing and urbanization can't be de-linked, that means your imagination as an architect about housing must necessarily come from your imagination of the city. You can't, these two, you can't detach, and this is a problem in the profession today because we often get pushed into a condition where we are given housing to design, and if you have no idea about the city, it's likely that it's not gonna be a very potent kind of solution, and so I think this connection he articulated quite beautifully in his writings and highlighted, and so it was really between 1964 when he started thinking about urbanization to 1984 when he finally wrote the commission on urbanization report for the government was the culmination and the development over these two, three decades of his thinking about urbanization, and in parallel he was producing a lot of housing, which was also propelling his imagination of what the city would be, and I believe the culmination of a lot of these ideas are in the Bailapur Housing Scheme, which is also prominent in the exhibition where Citco, that is the authority for New Bombay, finally invited him three decades later to design housing and he designed a project, it was really ironic because they'd had two projects. One was a project they did which was called Mass Housing. They called it Mass Housing and it was a cluster of five-story buildings and 20 blocks like that, and the site next to it they gave to Charles Correa where he developed incremental housing in a very kind of organic pattern learning from the intelligence of squatter settlements, how communities are organized, and they are a stark contrast when you look at them on a Google image. One looks like something that has evolved over centuries and the other is empty. It's this modernist project which is not even occupied to date and ironically Citco titled one Mass Housing and the other they called the Artist's Village because they felt that they won't be able to attract people to buy into that, so they gave quota, they gave special allocations to artists because they thought someone with a Bohemian lifestyle might enjoy that and actually it has been populated beautifully. I take my students back every year to study it and you have a beautiful representation of it in your exhibition and that's sort of worth looking at and that really for me is a culmination of in some ways all his ideas about housing and about urbanization and I just sort of to end I would just say that again I think to look at his work from the lens or from the question of what is the agency of design could teach us a lot. I think to understand the interrelationship between housing and urbanization I think is something that we can extract in deep ways I think from his practice and his propositions and I think it's really interesting to just bookend what Nandita said that here was an architect who quite consciously worked with a series of themes which he continuously reflected upon and those themes actually go across all the way from his urbanism and his imagination of the city to the smallest house he designs it's a consistent set of issues and it shows you how those themes you could translate them into the word values actually then become very important for us to remind ourselves about how as architects we are rooted in a place and how we might propel ourselves as agents of change in a society. Thank you. I think the time has come actually Rahul has also got a range of things that he deals with from cities to historic preservation to have some water here. No, no, no. Go ahead, to buildings themselves so I hope you're going to see some of that but I think your enthusiasm sort of reminds me of Charles as well by the way he has had the same kind of enthusiasm and the ways that he talked about things very different but it's interesting for me. I think we should actually now look at some architecture look at some projects and ideas and I'll ask Nate perhaps to hand this thing over to you and we'll go and join you and be able to look at the screen so thank you.