 And we really need to stay because I feel the sense of lunch coming and stomachs growling. So we're really going to ask the respondents, because there's so much material here, we're going to have three minutes per respondent. I don't even have time to put up the card. I'm just going to say time's up and we'll have to move on. To really just get to what is your most important point you would like to respond to that all of us can reflect on. So with that, I'm going to start first with Casey. Casey, my co-chair is helping me with that. We met in Delhi, it's an extensive experience in terms of government and planning and many different roles to begin our discussion. Casey. Thank you. I'll try and focus my brief comments on what has been presented and also the questions that were listed in the program. Number one, are cities planned in India? It would be very easy to bring this discussion to a close and say cities are not planned. One minute silence in honor of planning, end of the session. That's one way of looking at it. Neighborhoods are planned, buildings are planned, shopping malls are planned, facilities or sports are planned, cities as cities are not planned and they have not been planned for some time. And if you are not prepared to accept that reality, then I'm afraid much of your time is wasted. Second, policies and, you know, institutions, concepts. We hear about a world-class city. Whose concept is this world-class city? Who gave it to us? Whose world? Whose city? I can hear of a world-class soccer stadium. I can hear of a world-class airport. I can probably hear of a world-class hotel as the Elton Towers. But what is a world-class city? We have not had a concept or an attitude about city for quite some time. As long as the Ming's and the emperors and the Indian great kings and the moguls, whether there was an imperial purpose, there was a dominant purpose, there was a defense purpose, there was a religious purpose. And those major purposes are gone. What is the concept that we just, you know, float around ourselves? Third, what is this deference and genoflection to the so-called private sector? Why? What is the private sector so different from the rest of the society? It's wonderful to hear our friend from Singapore to say that design is a matter of public realm. It's not a matter of private negotiation and private deal-making. Here we are in Asian cities trying to dismantle the public realm, trying to forget what we ourselves contributed to the concept of settlements and cities. If you want to hack that public realm all the time, you do not have the right to talk about a city which is for the people. Fourth, the instruments. That's again a question. What are the instruments? Same old toolbox, same old planner's box, same old regulations and so on. We are trying to fiddle around with some adjustments. You hear all these various things, one of the things that appears to be, and I'm very impressed by what Umar Samuli presented in regard to Bombay. And you find in all these city presentations, except in Singapore, this so-called conflict between the city and the region, the city and the state. Over a long period of time, we have been used to a limited municipal construct. The Desivitas Dei, the Desivitas populi, small little controlled areas. But today's urban world is multi-municipal, multi-jurisdictional, and there are many, many, many, many actors, and these are going to be inevitable. In such a situation, we are busy negotiating space for various people, but we are not necessarily negotiating the space for the people themselves represented by local government. I hope some of you noticed in the case of Bombay, she made a reference to the Metropolitan Planning Committee. A Metropolitan Planning Committee, which consists of elected representatives, brings different municipal jurisdictions on a platform. Seven years the legislation has been there. Only Calcutta has set up the Metropolitan Planning Committee. Why? Because there is a certain amount of political reluctance to create and support a platform where contestation and argument will take place. In many of these cities, the state and the national government, whether they have a role or not, try to invigorate themselves into what is essentially a space that is to be determined by local choice. And if you abandon public realm, then in that case, you know, that local choice is also subdued, is also sort of, you know, is also given up. So from that point of view, as Uma mentioned, and this is applicable to others, you have a Metropolitan Development Authority which was born in good faith. But today it continues in bad faith. Because you are not prepared to accept the alternatives. So I think the problem to all this basic question, how cities are planned, whose city, for whom, if you are not prepared to ask that question, that you are not ready for this debate. Thank you. Rahul Narochov, who is now at Professor at MIT, it's an extensive work here. Thanks, Andy. I think I want to sort of pick up on two points which were to do with integration. And I want to add to the discussion by raising something which I think has been absent in the discussions, which is the issue of making a transition. How do you move from one to the other, especially in the context of these visions? And I couldn't help, there's a kind of neatness in the presentations we saw. So I couldn't help but think about the sessions from yesterday, especially the one about inequality. And I think what we are trying to do is reconcile or blur these many binaries that seem to face us in these cities, a formal, informal city, paraffry, you know, all the rest of it. And how do we do that? I think that's a critical question for design. Darren yesterday used the word kinetic, which I thought was wonderful, because I think Bombay is the ultimate kinetic city. It's a city where clearly architecture is not the spectacle of the city. Architecture doesn't represent it. There's a whole lot of other stuff that happens here. For me, the Ganesh Festival is a wonderful intersection of community and identity, and it leaves no trace. It has no codification. The images of Singapore, the images we saw of Pudong are clearly representative of societies where architecture is the spectacle of the city. So I think when we talk about integration, we have to recognize other sensibilities of where urban space is used. And I think the kinetic city has a number of lessons for us there. Lessons of temporal use, of how landscapes can shift and adjust. You know, I'm really amused in America when people in their cities celebrate and make this great effort to introduce farmers markets to humanize their cities. And, you know, more than 50% of our cities are farmers market, and we are trying to dehumanize our cities in the kinds of visions that we project. And so I think this notion of the kinetic city, the notion of different sensibilities have to be part of the effort of integration. So it's beyond land use. It's about also spatial sensibilities. And this is not to do just with the city of the poor. The rich use the city like that in Bombay. I mean, if you drive on Marine Drive, you have these wonderful Maidans there, these open spaces, and in the evening after the sportsmen have left, they get transformed into these spectacular venues for weddings. Of course, weddings are an outlet for ostentation in our society, and that's a whole different issue. But it's just wonderful how the city can actually expand its margins temporarily, leave no trace, and in the morning the cricketers are back there on turf that has been untouched. And in the process, there's craftsmanship, there's employment, and there's a spectacle which is about, I think, about identity. And so I refer to Richard Sennett, who yesterday, I think, shared with us some wonderful insights about urban design, scale issues of complexity, over-determined form, public space, the notion that contact is more critical than identity, etc. And I think these questions lie more in the kinetic city than where we are actually locating them. And the last issue of transition, the reason I bring this up, is I think like in the question of energy, when we are trying to move, you know, get out of fossil fuels, we have to make transitions through other modes of energies, and that's a recognized model. I think we've got to ask that question for cities. We can't jump from our present situation to some ideal condition. The city here is not about grand design, it's about grand adjustment. Thank you. And we'll turn now to Enrique Norton, architect in Mexico City, and now in New York, to pick up on this. Well, thank you very much, Professor Altman. Well, I want to share a reflection, probably a preoccupation and maybe a little bit of a provocation. As I have, as I see through these conferences and at the same time visit new cities to me, like Mumbai and other Asian cities, I get a bit concerned that we are seeing that the proposals that we hear here are mostly what I would consider, or I fear they would be most of them obsolete solutions, very outdated mechanisms and many stereotypes that are basically on a very failed profession, which is planning of the 20th century. We have seen that planners, and please, I don't mean to offend anyone and excuse me, have only showed us a totally lack of imagination. I don't think that the two-dimensional city that we have been using for the last 100 years has anything to do with the city of the future. Here we are sitting in Mumbai, a city that obviously is eager to reinvent itself and become one of those cities of the 21st century. And again, we are looking at solutions of 19th century and maybe first half of the 20th century. I think that, or I wish, we could have here more visionaries. We cannot keep on looking at plans, plans by meaning two-dimensional representations of cities or statistics in a series of numbers. We are seeing no visionary work. Why aren't cities investing in vision? In vision, and I mean physical vision, multi-dimensional vision. I very strongly believe the city of the future is a multi-dimensional city that does not relate to the pre-modern city or to the many failures of the first half or middle of the last century. We are here facing more densification, more congestion, and at the same time we need to invent more new public space. And the only way to be able to do that is to start thinking literally in a multi-dimensional city. By that, I don't mean building high only because that is still, if public space keeps on being just a two-dimensional condition, we're doing nothing. We can see certain moments in Singapore, which I visited recently, that are really thinking into the future. Hong Kong, maybe other Tokyo in certain aspects. But I think cities like Mumbai, cities like Shanghai, cities like Dubai, and Shanghai and Dubai are already gone. But Mumbai has a great possibility for that future. So that's really what I wanted to share. Why aren't we looking into the multi-dimensional city of the 21st century and please stop looking at the failed planning profession of the last century? Thank you very much. We now turn to Barun Kumaray from the Secretary of the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority. And I'll still talk to you, even though you've offended me, Enrique, in the entire profession of planning. We can still have a drink tonight. Yeah, exactly. No, we're friends. We'll talk about architecture later. Well, I'll start by relating a small anecdote. If you were to make God laugh, what would you do? You should go up. If you were to make God laugh, what would you do? Tell him your plans. I think while we discuss about whether cities can be planned or not, I'm sure God will be conversed with laughter. Anyway, the point that I'd like to stress upon here today is the conflict that we have between central planning and local planning. We have been discussing about this in our, over the past two days. And I feel that this is the biggest issue that confronts a city government today. The problem of multiplicity of plans and agencies and the ad hocism in planning that we have, especially in India, that is the, I think, the biggest challenge that is confronting large cities like Mumbai or Kolkata or, for that matter, Delhi. It would be very important for us to resolve these issues. And to resolve these issues, as we have tried to do in Kolkata, we have a metropolitan planning committee which has representations from various chairpersons and representatives of the Panchayat areas. For example, Kolkata, just like Mumbai, the metropolitan area encompasses a large portion more than the city core as such, which in Mumbai as well as in Calcutta, I would say is about 10% of the entire metropolitan area. So unless we have representatives and the aspirations of people living in the fringe areas is met, it is very difficult for us to prepare the development plans or the plans for the city and plan as a whole. Secondly, we have been passed down by the 74th Amendment Act of the Constitution. The 12th Schedule of the Constitution says that there are 18 functions which have been devolved to the city governments. But where is the city government? As we have been seeing, especially in India, the city government is non-existent. So the point that I'm trying to make is that we may plan and we may plan, but when we finance those plans, what would be the role of the state in partly implementing these plans? And the issues of convergence and governance, which is very important, I think we should dwell upon in our deliberations. Thank you. Thank you. And now to Larisa, a different part of who works with Larisa Special Advisor in International Relations to the Mayor of Mexico City. Thank you very much, Andy. I really like very much this dubious honor of being the last one to speak before the lunch break because it surely makes everybody think, I hope this Mexican guy finishes up quite quickly so I can go taste the chicken curry. I'll be very brief. First, I can't agree more with KC, but I have some things that also have to be put into consideration. One is that given competitive and the uncertain economic environment, the cities need what's been said here, what we can certain from all these two days is that cities need to evolve into competitive strategic planning to get the most effective planning out of their limited financial and human resources to achieve the targets. It's certain that the capital available to any given city is highly elastic and only flows to cities that show potential and show well-thought-out planning in the future. In that sense, one key challenge in spite of cities' particular governance issues or due to them in many cases is that in order to be more efficient to service providers and wealth generators, the planning of the cities development strategies has to comprise well-positioned well-timed public, private and civil society strategic interventions in order to significantly be able to alter for the better the development path of the cities. These three sectors act harmoniously and decisively. Changes are likely to go faster and deeper and this is particularly important for planners and policy makers as lots of empirical evidence show that changes of cities can be done in enormous ways and time spans as short as 10 to 20 years. That's one of the things, reflections I have to make and the other one is very quickly about what Sheila Dick said today about giving word of the constituency. We can agree more. Major Brad in Mexico City has to be able to give the best for the public interest and how what's a better way to do it to be able to give the people a little bit of voice and in that sense I'd like to share this last 30 seconds I have one experience we had very recently in July giving that climate change as Nick turns very bitterly put today in his keynote presentation is one of the key issues for societies in one of the foremost challenges. Major Brad posted in July a green referendum that started with the people up with the younger generations of up to 14 age-olds because we sincerely think that in ethical terms and practical terms this is the generation that we're going to give the city as an inheritance of the show they should be able to have a word. So he put up a green referendum with 10 fundamental points asking if we should invest more in infrastructure to build new pathways and second roadways to send to use more vehicles or if we should go the other way around and to build more time ways and alternative systems massive transportation. Well the results were outstanding we had one million and a half people voting to be able to produce a city more oriented towards the green environment and that was for us one very effective way to involve people in active public policy and to give policymakers good sound policies. Thank you very much. We have time for five minutes and I think what I'd like to do there are many many questions have been asked many are very specific to Mumbai many are proposals many are specific questions to people and we're fortunate to try to connect some of these in a question of what we've heard. We've heard in the opening presentation yesterday about what's happening with urbanization the scale of urbanization the velocity, how quickly it's happening the complexity of it of different peoples migrations populations so there's an enormous rate of change happening on the one hand. We have as we heard from Tony Travers systems we're going to hear more from Joe Frug of governance that may or may not align what is the very notion of the city the regional city, the local city the right governance structure to deal with urbanization. We heard from Philip Rota about how planning systems may or may not be even capable have the capacity or be integrated to deal with this complexity let alone the mismatch between planning systems governance systems and the scale of urbanization. And then we have the whole issue that's come up is the Dharavi discussion about community processes, democratic processes from Shanghai where the government is able to implement unimpeded to more robust conversations like we had about Dharavi of different levels of protest and participation that are able to happen here in Mumbai and a whole continuum. So we have whole different systems operating. The question that I think would be I think we're interested in the urban age is how to connect the physical, the social, the economic, the governance together. And the one thing I think would be interesting since we have a panel here with architects, with planners, with different senior level government people the role of place. Where is the role of the physical place of the city? What you talked about, Rike, to go from two-dimensional to three-dimensional these abstract planning systems, the abstract notions of governance, all of these things that can operate at a very grand level. And when we looked yesterday at Rahul and we talked about the mills and said planning can set the FSI, the open space, but what about the physical place? So I'm curious maybe to get some reaction about how do we bring place and design from the ground up, if you will, the DNA, the uniqueness of these cities into this larger conversation of the big planning systems that are out there that may or may not be working and then we don't lose what it is that ultimately is so special and defines the identity of place and cities. So I'd be curious to open that up for a few minutes of discussion before lunch. Well, I mean, I think it seems to me that I think governance becomes the key issue here because I mean, we seem we seem to I think we're all seeming to recognize that that's the key sort of missing block and how that can actually percolate down these these different sort of levels at which the city operates. It just seems to me that's sort of the key missing sort of piece. In regard to space you also have to look at it from a scale. I think at the neighborhood level the city level, what Mr. Mayrothra has already mentioned Asian cities, Indian cities, world cities the people have shown that space is not static, it is dynamic it can be used and reused in different ways to connect itself to the different functions of the city. One of the very, very bad tools we have inherited from 19th century as Enrique points out is a set of color pens which says conforming land use non-conforming land use and as long as there is ink in the magic marker we have busy plotting non-conforming uses. They do not conform in the planner's mind, they eminently conform in the people's mind. One, two the concept of gated communities is not restricted to communities it is being elevated to the city scale to the metropolitan scale in a way it was elevated in that manner in regard to Joe Berg as you know Joe Biel pointed out it's the same thing that is now taking place parts of the city with access parts of the city without access parts of the city with infrastructure what we are doing here in India in the name of special economic zones we are creating brand new privately owned company towns and they have already made a demand we want freedom from tax we want freedom from everything we also want freedom from the constitution so that we would like all the people living in this special economic zone to be loyal citizens to the company so therefore I think this business of space we have to recognize space as a multiple entity space as a scale entity and the space should be decided by the people not preempted by the market in advance and that is what is happening across different asian cities thank you Tony Travers in the context of all those maps and charts that we were looking at earlier on there's no doubt that however configured planning for transport or for city and land use development is inevitably a top down institutional thing where clearly people constitute a place and they have views upon it and I think the issue that the urban age throws up again and again these conferences throw up again and again is how these institutional mechanisms which are inevitable and to some extent well some people don't think they are but I think they are almost inevitable how they can be sensitive to people and place and I think we have to recognize that there is a conflict here an inevitable conflict and the the micro political issue is how to reconcile those conflicts by these big institutions to people in communities and in cities that are developing all the urban age cities are growing and developing the conflicts between the city-wide institutions or the statewide institutions and individuals in their neighborhoods will always be significant they really will Small point before part of it you can talk about structures as much as you want but if there is an aspirational side to which you're talking about unless you plug into those structure those skills high up such as a city architect not just a city planner someone advising the key politicians that's how it works in the UK the mayor is advised by Richard Rogers as it happens in London which probably has had an impact in terms of the vision which is being said unless you do that you don't solve the problem just by playing around with structures of decision making just to answer to your question which I think it's a very well formulated question I think it's a very important question I don't think there are universal solutions obviously I don't think there are even universal solutions within a city you know I think our cities and especially cities of the complexity of Mumbai and many others that we have been discussing require very specific proposals and very specific solutions for each one of their many many pieces and elements of each one of the city at the end the city will be some of many good solutions and all I wish and I agree completely obviously with what Ricky just described you know unfortunately for the rest of the world London is a highly sophisticated city and it's very difficult to apply those conditions to many of the other cities that we are discussing you know precisely London one of those pre-modern cities with a very strong pre-modern structure it's other the issues that London deals with I only wish that people that are making decisions in our city would believe more in creation and imagination you know and less in formulaic solutions thank you on that note let's thank everyone here it's been a very rich session