 That was a very humbling presentation to follow, so thank you, and maybe also an interesting discursive set up because I come from a practice which is only about two thirds architects. I'm going to talk in detail about one project, and it's a project which is in Liverpool, and Liverpool is a port city in North England, and it's had a really long history of migration, and this area where we've been working, Granby, is an area where the international community historically has really thrived. In the 1970s, however, the wider economic and social conditions which affected the UK and Liverpool particularly hit Granby in a very acute way and it fell rapidly into decline. Centralised attempts to regenerate Granby began then, but they were intensified in the 1980s after a popular and widespread uprising, and that saw centralised attempts to disperse the population through compulsory purchase orders, through systemic disinvestment. By the 1990s, of the 14 streets that had made up Granby, there were only four left, and two of them were in the condition that you see here on this image, and the other two were still partially inhabited, but many houses were like this, they were tinned up and burnt out. Activity of the few remaining residents came and went, but it intensified around some direct action in 2010, and that direct action was to resist further demolitions that was sit-ins, it was planting, and it was painting, and that direct action brought some life back into the area, but it also enabled them to formalise as a community land trust. So this is the context that we walked into. In 2012 we were approached by a social investor who'd become really interested in the area, and our work initially focused on the picture of the street I just showed you, which is directly neighbouring this one. Initially we were just talking to the land trust in order to learn from them, but it turned out that as they had formed they had also developed an idea, a plan for an incremental approach to rebuilding Granby in a patchwork way, which also included community ownership, so we went from learning from them quite rapidly to working with them. Together we developed a plan, which considered the houses together with the public realm, together with public life, together with the high streets, and took several projects, all thinking at a small scale. But the critical thing that this plan did was translate the community land trust's ideas, which were largely in discussion, into propositional form, into a form that presented them in a style, a level of detail, and with a kind of visual authority that enabled the city council to engage with them, to use them to surround discussions. It was a document which then created the conditions for a meaningful dialogue to occur between this very, very local level and the level of the city. The second thing that was really critical was this investor that we've been speaking that had involved us, offered a very low cost long term loan to the land trust of half a million pounds. This together, with a year of negotiation, led to the city council eventually transferring 10 houses on Cairn Street, the one I showed you pictures of, to the land trust. Of those 10 houses, five were to be made available for social rent, and five for sale, at 80% of market value, and the trust developed a covenant which linked the resale price of those houses, which were on the market, to the average wage rise in Liverpool. I think the next thing which is maybe just quickly worth speaking about is the approach. The houses were largely in this condition when we started. We worked in very affordable, very robust materials, but combined that with a handmade approach, which put these very small, much more loved, very beautiful details in. These details were critical to the success of the project, because setting up a workshop on site, occupying empty properties, we were able to move into the area, to move into this house on the street, to live upstairs, to have site meetings, a builders cafe, a workshop space, and be there in a very, very day-to-day way, so collaborating, working alongside, not overseeing and not issuing instructions. Out of that, emerged that day-to-day conversation, the opportunity to develop more projects in the area, which again consider places to live as part of a wider infrastructure, so that includes the workshop you can see here, Winter Garden, which will have a long-term artist residency space, but also plans to reopen for commercial properties on the edge, so considering the relationship between Granby and then its role in the wider city of Liverpool and its relationship to it. So it's architecture kind of on the edge of chaos and realised as a social and collective process and enabling architecture to be a contribution to an ongoing conversation, but not necessarily to lead it, but to be a distinct voice within it. Thank you. Thank you, Amika. That was definitely a project of regeneration as the subject of the session has been defined. Could you dwell a little bit more on this idea of being there on a day-to-day basis that you talked about? You set up a workshop that was almost living within the community and being part of that change. So the critical thing really was the budget available for the houses was very tight and it would have been impossible to do a conventional restoration approach and so by having something to do, by being there and fabricating parts of the houses, we were able to really become part of day-to-day life in the area and so the relationship with the CLT and with the contractors and with the councillors is not one of formal meetings, it's one of coincidental conversations of eating together, of sharing space and that day-to-day-ness means that rather than having to be in a position where as an architectural coming in and trying to build consensus around a single vision for the future, what you're doing is taking part in a process which will elaborate over the long term which can accommodate different opinions and maybe doesn't have to have a predetermined outcome. So it's a very reactive way of practicing architecture. Very participatory. You participate in the process of regeneration yourself. Not something that an architect's normal fees would cover. So clearly Joe, we are breaking boundaries here. This is beyond the cautionary note that you made and let's just see how far we go with the next two presentations on migration and refuge.