Summary and Discussion

Mr. Powell: We've gathered some really wonderful speakers here at the annual meeting, and I think we've got some of the top ones with us today to share their thoughts with you. I want to first talk about the things that I thought were very prescient. I then want to ask each member of our panel to speak for a few minutes about their thoughts about the conference, what interested them most and what they think are the most important elements. Then, of course, we'll take your questions and your thoughts and ideas after that.

I was especially struck by the notion that the projected growth through 2050 will be the equivalent of a one-million-population city every week. Sometimes it's useful to think about things like that to get a true idea of what the magnitude is. It's very hard to toss around the concept of billions of people and have any clear image of it, but I thought that was a very interesting point.

I think the growth within the Texas Triangle, which became a central topic yesterday, has all those aspects to it too. It's going to be growing, according to Steve Murdock, very rapidly, with much of that coming from the growth within the Hispanic population.

We should be thinking about urban sprawl and other things of increasing concern because of their implications, financial and environmental and otherwise. I was heartened by the notion of Hispanic growth and the Texas Triangle from the sense that the networking of Hispanic communities and neighborhoods is quite different than it is among Anglos and blacks and others. Perhaps a new pattern of growth for Texas can be encouraged. Hispanics typically don't move until they're pushed out because of some physical reason. Anglos and others get pulled out and move elsewhere more by attraction. That says to me that neighborhoods are crucial to family stability. I thought that was thought provoking and important.

A cyclical urban economy, the cradle to cradle idea that materials shouldn’t be wasted, that everything is reused, is a powerful idea and I hope we get some comment on that. The humanization of the landscape is a theme that I've long been interested in. For example, in 18th and 19th century England, humanists were looking for a counterpart to the brutal industrialization of England. I think this is relevant today because it seems to me that we must find some mid-point in developing the land that is growing increasingly dense and yet we need to preserve something of beauty. As discussed yesterday, looking through the merely beautiful at the sublime provides inspiration.

I think we need a few more architectural junkies, “pushers,” as Larry Speck described himself. It's going to take people speaking up. Ted Flato said that architecture needs to suit its place, that great architecture comes from the place, and that's where the individuality of the regional strength comes from. If you go from one little town in Italy to another, you find they're quite different. They respond to their own sort of character, their own sort of land, and that's what makes them, I think, partly, so wonderful.

And finally, what are we going to do about regulation, or is it going to be regulation? Are we going to do it through taxation? Are we going to cap carbon emissions and then trade them? I think that is another important theme.

Rafael Pelli has to leave shortly, so I want to call on him first to get started.

Mr. Pelli: Thank you, Boone. He mentioned at breakfast this morning he'd like me to think about what kinds of regulatory, policy or other kinds of strategies can be employed to make many of these issues we've talked about more commonplace and to look more seriously at the impact of buildings on the environment. I think about these things a lot. I don't really know an exact answer. I've had experience with different policy initiatives at the state level, at institutional levels. Sometimes you just have an enlightened donor.

But as I stand back from the impact of the individual building and I look at it more broadly, there's probably about four or five areas of research and implementation that I think are equally important. One of them really is - I'm going to let Bob and Marilyn talk more about it - the issue of density. The biggest correlation is between energy use and where you live. If you look at a BTU-per-square-foot calculation, and I don't remember the statistics offhand, but they're quite startling, the BTU-per-square-foot of a person who lives in New York or Chicago and walks to work or takes the subway to work versus the BTU-per-square-foot of someone who lives out in suburban Los Angeles is less than a third. It's a dramatic difference and the opportunity as we look at increasing population and development is as much about land-use planning and issues of urban infrastructure as it is about anything we do at the individual building level. I think that looking at new regulatory initiatives that will be coming soon under this new administration are a possibility for really promoting density through mass transportation and energy infrastructure.

I lived in Los Angeles and when they proposed the subways, it was pretty roundly ridiculed because these lines were going through areas which were very sparsely occupied. Really, it missed the point. What's been startling is to see in a short period of time, the patterns of growth around those lines. What mass transportation does is it sets the blueprint for future growth; we can create a denser typical living environment. It would have a bigger impact than anything else we do at the individual building level.

When we talk about energy in buildings, we mean electricity. When we are talking about electricity, we mean coal. Oil is transportation and industrial production. Reducing energy use in buildings is really about reducing the number of coal-fired plants and trying to increase the use of renewables. But there are some different issues relative to coal and oil which, when we talk about energy independence, I think we sometimes overly simplify. The denser development actually addresses both of those issues because it addresses the oil issues keenly related to transportation and the electrical issues keenly developed to urban living and getting used to living in a slightly smaller unit.

The second thing I was going to say is we have to tackle the issue of existing buildings. This is huge. Primarily in existing buildings and all that we will be renovating them; we will be building a lot of new buildings. Setting up a series of systems by which we tackle the existing buildings is critical. The United Kingdom's actually going through some really aggressive programs of demanding energy audits and refurbishment programs.

One useful thing that could be done at the federal level is to set up a financing program to allow for performance contracting where there are loans made to older buildings for retrofit and renovation targeted specifically for energy. I think the Mayors' conference has already brought it up, it's been an idea that's been proposed; it simply hasn't been implemented yet. But that would have a big impact on overall energy use.

Many of the things I talked about are becoming evolving standards. I think some of the issues, like water, are going to be much more of a regional issue. I think energy is the one that really needs to be tackled at a national level. There exist national standards, but energy codes are still on a state-by-state basis. It's rather an opaque number and understanding. When you talk about cars, you talk about miles per gallon and having a similarly simple way of understanding energy use is very important. It's a useful way to quickly summarize the relative merits of various strategies. That's why I've been talking more about energy intensity numbers. If we have clear standards and we can see clear targets for improvement, you can use energy intensity number as a performance measure by which you have to attain that metric in order to get your building permit.

In Germany you have to go with energy analysis in order to get a building permit. If we said you've got to meet a 30K-BTU-per-square-foot number in order to get your building permit, you'd find a revolution in the way people tackled energy issues. But I think it will have to be made simple and there has to be a way that we can understand it more clearly than through the current mechanisms.

At a broader level there needs to be better funding for research into building physics and building technology. Right now building technology is not seen as a legitimate sort of public research. The European Union actually funds building technology through a number a universities. I'm citing the work of Vivian Loftness at Carnegie Mellon who is probably one of the leading academics in this country dealing with building physics and with building technology. The NSF, the National Science Foundation, doesn't recognize building technology as a legitimate science research project. If we really want to tackle energy, building technology research has got to be something very strongly supported. It can't just come out of the private sector.

At an academic level, through the universities, I think there's a real challenge to try to incorporate sustainable design. Dean Steiner's dealing with these issues a lot; all the universities are. But there is a more integrated way of teaching which is more common in Europe, which really teaches ideas of building physics and integrates architecture and engineering much more completely in the educational system. I think that's an interesting model to look at, how you let architects understand the consequences of their formal decisions. You can't get a complete technical education in school. Three years is actually a very short period of time. I'm 52 now and I'm just starting to get it and I'm just starting to know what questions to ask my engineers. So in the three years of college or graduate school you can only get so far. I think that in the educational system there could be a more integrated way of learning that teaches ideas about building physics more along the German model.

Certainly if you believe, as I do, that climate change is real, and I don't think there's any dispute in the scientific community that it's real, it needs to be addressed. I'm on a climate change committee in New York City looking at how the building codes should be rewritten to respond to the issues that are going to come up over the next 50 years and looking at the range of change. It's not a question of whether there's going to be change; it's a question of how much change and how should the buildings in New York be built differently to reflect the different climate.

I would close by saying that, I think, as we look forward there are a lot of issues that need to be looked at, but I am encouraged by the rate of change over the last ten years. It really has gone from a very minor issue on very few people's agenda to something that's being discussed much more broadly, much more robustly. The building industry at large has really responded to this and has made this a big part of their agenda. Thank you.

Mr. Powell: Do we have any questions for Rafael?

Audience: Rafael, I’m Sally Kleberg and I have a question because I do live in New York and I'm aware of the environment up there and a lot of the building issues. We look at New Jersey where it's flooding because they've paved over all their wetlands and things like that. I know energy is a big issue in getting people to and from work and air pollution, water pollution are affected by it. What about the impact on the landscape itself, like your wetlands, using permeable materials? Is that going to be regulated as well for people to pay attention because that is our cleaning system for the air and the water?

Mr. Pelli: It is going to have to be regulated more than it has been. I think part of it is science has only recently gotten to the point where we're starting to understand it better, understanding that the impacts of these larger-scale systems is sometimes kind of a slow process. I think that's largely achieved through land-use planning, and again, thinking big picture about using a denser kind of land-use planning set of strategies and not occupying every square of available land that's out there to develop.

Audience: I'm Doug Bartlett from Fort Davis. First note, let's add our thanks, Boone. We thanked you and the staff, but we need to thank your team of rivals who made this program really great. Thank all of you, real expertise.

Rafael, we talked last night just briefly about your academic background and you said you went to Yale for one of your degrees and yet didn't have any interaction with one of the finest environmental schools on the face of the earth, Yale School of Forestry and Environment. That leaves me to jump on your integrated idea because I really think there's great merit in considering integrating architecture with environmental education programs at the universities.

I'll make a specific recommendation for you and I can help you implement it if you're interested.

There's something called the Council of Environmental Deans and Directors and about 200 major U.S. universities are involved. If we were to put this proposal in front of them, schools of architecture and professors of architecture, maybe something specific could be done. Because if every new architect between now and 2050 has a sense of the environmental impact of what she or he does and communicates that sense to the individual household, homeowner or major corporation, we may make a path for architectural ethics for the future.

Mr. Pelli: I agree. I'd actually be curious to hear Dean Steiner talk a little about what is really going on. He's much closer to that.

Dean Steiner: In fact, one thing I wanted to do because you've only got ten more minutes is to see if our panelists here have a thought or a question for you.

Dean Taylor: Actually, I was just going to say something to the gentleman who just spoke. At this moment the Yale School of Architecture and FES, the Forestry Environment Sciences, do have some courses that their students are taking at the other school. Our firm is currently trying to finish construction of the new environment that the Michael Hopkins Building is sitting in at Science Hill. I can tell you that there are a couple of classes that I have attended and given talks in that have architecture students up at FES. So it's happening, but it's on the students individually, not as a departmental effort. But it's there for those who seek it out. Fritz, do you want to say anything before Rafael takes over again?

Dean Steiner: This is one of those…where to start? I wasn't allowed to take Laurie's drawing class when I was a graduate student at Penn.

Mr. Olin: And he was in our department.

Dean Steiner: Before entering the Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning at Penn, I had a strong art background, and Laurie's colleague and my mentor and eventual friend, Ian McHarg, who, of course, was a pioneer in ecological design, required that I take an advance ecology course instead of Laurie’s drawing class. Laurie’s students would draw outside and I would walk by wanting to be part of Laurie’s class. Sometimes, I'd sit there and draw a little bit on the way over to the Lou Kahn designed Richards Medical Research Laboratory, which was a horrible building to take a class in and is where I took advanced ecology. I would be in this dreary, hot classroom and there would always be architecture students outside taking pictures of the famous Lou Kahn building. While I learned more ecology, I also learned there was a big gap between architectural aesthetics and building performance.

A huge topic and one of the basic challenges we face in schools of architecture is addressing pertinent and important challenges without the research infrastructure to support what we're doing. Just two quick anecdotes. First, we compete in something called the Solar Decathlon, sponsored by the Department of Energy. Essentially, schools of architecture and engineering build houses demonstrating state-of-the-art solar technology. We built a solar house on the mall in Washington, D.C., which is open to the public for two and a half weeks. I convinced my university president the impact of the Solar Decathlon has. There are as many people on the mall at the Solar Decathlon daily as would attend a Longhorn football game, but the event continues for two and a half weeks. So the impact is equivalent to 18 Longhorn games. For each Solar Decathlon, we have to raise about a half million dollars, which is a sizable amount of money.

We've done reasonably well in the competition, but we were trounced last year by a team from Darmstadt, Germany. While we spent a half-million dollars, they spent two and a half million dollars on their house, much coming from the German federal and state governments; five times more than us. The Germans are investing in these things and we're not. We're not going to compete in the next Solar Decathlon because we've got a capital campaign, and I have to choose between raising money for the decathlon or scholarships. I'm going to raise money for scholarships and sit the next decathlon out because of the fund-raising challenges.

On a more positive note, there have been several references to LEED that the U.S. Green Building Council has developed. LEED was modeled after Austin's Green Building Program. My faculty and our graduates were involved in developing the Austin program, and we are currently involved in a related effort with the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center and others.

We're working with the U.S. Green Building Council, the American Society of Landscape Architects, the U.S. Botanic Garden, and others on the sustainable sites initiative, called SITES ( Our goal is to develop the landscape equivalent to the LEED standard, LEED for the outdoors. While we’re working in the field of green building and landscape design, I think a real fundamental challenge is the lack of research funding which would enable schools of architecture to advance our knowledge further.

I would just point out that Texas Congressman McCall sponsored some really good legislation supporting green building research about a year ago. It was before the 2007 elections. It passed the House quite handily but never got any traction in the Senate. The bill would have provided funding for schools of architecture to work with schools of engineering in green building research.

One other footnote: of the last eight hires I've made, four have been from Germany because they understand building systems. And, it isn't because of my name. It's because people in Munich and Berlin are doing the integrated work that Rafael mentioned.

Dean Taylor: I wanted to underscore the issue about the need for research funds and then make a comment on an integrated design. We have at Penn something called the T.C. Chan Center which is a very advanced, very sophisticated center; a group of people who are engaging in parametric design which means the evaluation of the kind of parameters and inputs and outputs that Rafael was talking about. It is funded a little bit by us, University of Pennsylvania, but primarily by the Chinese Government and the Qatar government. The really extraordinary work we're doing is going back to those places in the form of products and results that they are receiving in return. I think that the commitment to fund the kind of research we're talking about is really missing at the level of our government. I think that we all need to work together to try to make that happen.

Good things are happening at schools. Somebody at Carnegie Mellon, a couple of folks at Yale, clusters of people at Penn, but by and large they don't even have a means to talk to each other with any degree of regularity. So there's a lot that could be done and they're many incredibly talented people coming up with these sophisticated models that I barely understand, but can actually produce the kind of analysis that we're looking for.

Secondly, on the point on integrated design, I think if you define it in the broadest way is what we're really looking about here. It's not just buildings in the landscape; it's also infrastructure and landscape. Airports, for example, are huge land areas, 10,000 to 12,000 acres of land that sits mostly as void space. They could function as sophisticated water cleansing zones. They could function certainly as detention and retention areas. There could be many things that are added to an airport.

Maybe we could design water and transport and energy and communications all together and, therefore, these investments that we are making would be investments in many directions. That isn't going to happen as long as there's a state Department of Transportation and an Energy Office and the Department of Sanitation all operating their own separate kingdoms. It requires very significant change. But I firmly believe the benefits are there.

We're fortunate at Penn. In our graduate programs, more than 20 percent of the students take a second degree or certificate in one of the design fields. I truly believe they come out thinking in a more integrated fashion as a result of the efforts that my two colleagues sitting here at the table have been making. But we need a much more thorough commitment to tear down the walls between the disciplines and to work together if we're going to solve this problem at any scale.

Audience: Let me just comment on a couple of themes. I want to come back to a broader one, but one of them is the term "under investment," which has been used with regard to virtually every issue that we've talking about here. Under investment and research, Steve Murdoch's presentation about demographics, and the fact that the next generation of Texans will not have the skills, will not have the education, will not have the ability to make it into the mainstream of this society or this economy unless we invest in all of these things, but in K through 12 education, higher education.

I mentioned to Fritz earlier before we started that every few years somebody comes out with a global survey of research universities and the Times London came out with a new one about a month ago. When these things first started coming out, 20 or 30 years ago, the big public universities in the Midwest and the Cal system owned the top ten. In the recent Times London survey, not a single public university in the United States appeared in the top 25 or 30. But we were very pleased to see that not only were eight out of the 20 in the Northeast, but they were all the Ivys: Penn and Harvard and Yale, and so forth.

So under investing in research, under investing in education, under investing in infrastructure, I guess it goes back to the beginning of the Reagan revolution with this notion that we could basically have an economy where everything was about consumption and none of it was about production. Everything was about private consumption and the public sector be damned. We've denigrated public service; we've denigrated public spending. And some of it's been deserved.

Obviously, we've had boondoggles in federal and state programs and so forth, but I think the consistent theme here is we have to transform Texas cities, the Texas Triangle, Texas, and the country if we're going to compete globally; if we're going to make the changes that are going to be necessary to create this new civilization. It's not just Texas that's seeing the kind of demographic changes that Steve was talking about yesterday. It's the whole country. And so if we're going to compete, we're going to adapt to the changes in climate and energy systems; we're going to have to invest.

Mr. Pelli: Now, I'm going to leave you with that. I think there is the need to invest from a federal standpoint right now. I think the recognition money needs to get somehow pumped into the economy and there's also recognition about some of these issues we've been talking about. I'll be very curious to see what happens over these next months. Some of these issues are being thought about and talked about and being already put into policy action right now.

So I have hope and I'll be curious to see where we are next year at this time when you all gather to see what's happened to respond to a lot of these issues. Thank you, I've really enjoyed my time here with all of you, a very good group of listeners. I was asked a lot of tough questions last night, which I always appreciate. It made it interesting for me. And I wish you all the best. Thank you.

Mr. Powell: Let me ask our panelists if they have more to say, sort of as an outgrowth of the conference, before we turn to your questions.

Audience: Laurie Olin here. Just one other thought. You know I'm a regional planner and I really do believe that a lot of the changes that we're talking about here have to be accomplished on the regional scale; that we really have to be thinking about transforming each of the big cities across the state and the Texas Triangle. It’s pretty extraordinary that I started in Georgetown, which is 20 miles north of Austin, and my whole trip here the slurb never stopped. It just is a continuing band of what Ian McCard called "a cancerous excrescence on the earth," I think was his Scottish translation. Just 120 miles of crud. The good news is it’s all throw-away crud. It's all designed to be written off in 20 years. It's good news is in the Tax Code; bad news is it's bad for the environment, but I'm of the mind that we could accommodate all of the growth that's forecast for the Texas Triangle in already urbanized areas.

The key to dealing with climate and energy and the social changes that we're talking about, the key to creating the kinds of communities that Marilyn talked about yesterday is designing them around transit and sidewalks and shoe leather and a quality public realm. It's about density; it's about infilling and redeveloping. And the great news is that every one of these cities have been built out at lower densities than just about any other place on earth, except for maybe Atlanta. They have that consistent with other parts of the South. It's interesting. You go to Phoenix or you go to LA and they're quite dense because there's no water. It's all driven by the water systems. At any rate, the bad news is that we've been just ravishing, destroying vast areas of this wonderful place for at least a century, at least since the Second World War.

The good news is that we know how to fix them, and you heard about it, they're kind of happy accidents and models for how to do things. Now we need to regularize those things. We know how to build cities that work, cities and suburbs that people want to live in and that the marketplace wants to build. There seems to be more and more public support for this thing and now we've got to take the steps. And I think in the end it is about regional planning; it's about incentives and so forth, but it's also about creating good regional plans. There have been regional visioning exercises in four out of the five cities in the Texas Triangle. I met with, or had a conversation with, a young woman from the mayor's office here in San Antonio; San Antonio's about to create one.

We have a process for building public consensus about creating higher density, more compact, more energy efficient, climate efficient places and so forth. Now, we have to develop the political will to take these models and to take this technology and make it happen. It's really about political will. Some of it, of course, is about convincing the rest of Texas that this is a good idea, which obviously hasn't quite happened yet.

Audience: I hope we're going to come back to political will in response to the question that came up at the end of the day yesterday. Just a couple of comments about that. Why do we get the commercial corridors everywhere? Why do we get the sprawl from Austin to San Antonio? It's because land is cheap. We think of land as cheap. We think of developing as inexpensive and we've created a drive to qualify society so that low-cost housing is pushed to the perimeter and inevitably almost along big interstates with access that gets people to their place of employment. And I would say that what we're talking about here today, and if you'd had a little more time yesterday too, we would have heard about it with regard to water.

We have to start thinking about the real costs, not just the land costs but the energy costs of serving those places. We have to think about the water costs of serving those places. And access to clean, sufficiently safe-to-drink water is a huge problem in other parts of the world. It could become one in parts of the United States as well. And what if all of a sudden, and this could be either good or it could be terrible, public policy comes in saying communities are no longer led by he who controls the land but rather by he who controls the water, or by the company that controls the energy.

In a sense we have a chance to get ahead of that problem and have these become driving forces for the ways that communities are defined and built. I want to tie it together with a really great question yesterday which was what keeps architects from having their visions realized? And I've thought a lot about that, and there are a lot of things that we could throw into the conversation, some related to what Laurie said, or what Ted said about architecture expressing its place.

It also expresses values; it expresses the values of the people you're building it for. Oftentimes we have an idea but the client says, you know, I really like your idea; that's a brilliant idea, but the marketplace really wouldn't like that. So I think we need to think of ourselves as leaders in the marketplace. We have to get the message across that we are willing to pay a little more to live in an energy-efficient building, or we are willing as a larger public to subsidize things so that they can be less energy-consuming. We have to articulate our preferences in the market in order for this to whole process to work. It's public action but it's also our action as the buyers and purchasers of goods and services and even of design, if we want to be successful in changing the way we use our land.

Panelist: I didn't talk about my practice yesterday; I talked about something else. But since about 1977 our firm has been involved in urban landscape, doing landscape architecture in the cities because we decided that cities are the problem. And the problem with the American cities is that Americans don't really like cities; they haven't. They've been uncomfortable with living at density for a long time.

It seemed to me the only way we'd ever save any of the agriculture near the cities, the best soils and the land that we all love so much, would be to have great cities that people wanted to live in and raise kids and work in. And the only way we can have great cities is to make them livable. Imagine New York City, Manhattan, without Central Park. It'd be inhabitable.

But with Central Park, it’s possible and, in fact, it's highly desirable. The most expensive addresses are around Central Park. Okay. One of the things I've concluded is that Americans still think parks are empty land. They think it’s vacant. They don't think it already has a use and is full and is productive and generative, but the interesting truth is parks create value. When we redid Bryant Park in New York City, the property values shot up all around the place. Density increased; it changed that part of Manhattan.

When we did the open spaces at Battery Park City and laid out that whole thing and then began to build those pieces, they created value on a piece of landfill. Admittedly, it was next to Wall Street, but it was cut off by a terrible highway. And who wanted to live in lower Manhattan? There were no schools; there were no grocery stores or anything. So part of the whole thing was to bring the basic things that make life good in a suburb, like open space, greenery, place to step out, exercise, be safe with your kids, go to the grocery, bring all that into the hearts of American cities where they has slowly been disappearing.

I feel that the most important landscaping to be done is right in the heart of cities because that's where you can make a place where people are with their kids and their dogs and where they want to walk to work. Bob Yaro and I are old buddies and old friends and he's working out on the big picture; I'm working on the tiny picture. But the problem is we need to do this together.

There's a kind of teamwork that our country is terrible at. We really like stars; we like individuals. We like the one off thing. We like the big project that solves one problem instead of two or three at the time. And I think that's part of what Marilyn was getting at and what Bob was getting at a minute ago, that when you solve something you need to solve more than one problem at a time. PennDOT only solves extra lanes of traffic at interchanges. It doesn't really solve urban community and structure, whereas urban transit actually gives you corridors for development, tightens up land use, brings you density, moves people cheaply. And so the systems we're talking about, they all go together.

Dean Steiner: I had four areas from yesterday that really affected me. The first was the whole demographic discussion and especially how that relates to education. I think Steve did an incredibly good job showing the rise of the Hispanic population and the consequences of that.

There was some data that I was looking at in his charts that I think also merit some analysis and discussion at some point. The white population in Texas isn't declining; it's increasing as well. The African American population by those projections is doing some interesting things too. It's tracking about the same as the white population. The wild card in all those demographics was the Asian population. I was looking at those numbers and they were almost tracking like the Hispanic population. But it's like a little town in Nevada. It grows by 500 people and it has grown by 250 percent. But the Asian population is increasing. Two implications: one, what do we do with education, K-12? My wife teaches science at LBJ - not the LBJ School of Public Affairs but the LBJ High School in east Austin. She's at the other end of the spectrum. The University of Texas is the hardest public university to get into in the state and my school is the hardest school or college to get into in the University.

So I deal with absolutely the best and the brightest academic students in the state and she has reading challenges. I think the take-away from Steve's presentation was the K-12. The other part of the take-away, I think, is research universities. New York has dozens. And you look at California, then you look at Texas with research universities. We have three: two public research universities and one at Rice. Texas is not going to thrive. We have to be able to do that without really screwing up Texas A&M and The University of Texas at Austin. How do we do that? I think that's a tremendous challenge.

Second was the questions that Rafael mentioned that you asked us during the breaks and last night. Judy Zaffirini pointed out that if those are the demographics shouldn't we be talking about Mexican architecture more?

Panelist: Yes. And I think beyond that we really should be looking at Latin American urbanism and Latin American architecture. And I think there are some hopeful signs in the universities that are doing that. UT San Antonio has done a tremendous job of bringing more, increasing the number of Hispanic architects, just a tremendous job. Texas A&M Prairie View has done a remarkable job with African American training African-American architects. University of Texas at Austin, in the research area with the Latin American Studies, we're number one in that. We can't claim that in football this year but we're still number one in Latin Studies. So I think Senator Zaffirini's point is very good. Understanding, if those are the trends, what is the history and culture of settlement in Latin American becomes extremely important for education.

The third area is the Texas Triangle and I think one of the biggest challenges of the Texas Triangle is we are still governed by a cowboy rule mentality and we're an urban state. And the cities in Texas have incredible powers. Fernando yesterday was showing us extraterritorial jurisdiction and I thought, what does that mean? My God, New York City. If where I grew up in Dayton and Cincinnati, Ohio, had that they would be cities a lot larger than they are now. But the counties are just the weakest entities on earth in Texas. They have no power whatsoever.

I don’t think Senator Zaffirini is in the audience at the moment so I can admit this. I helped write a bill last year for the State Highway 130 Corridor. Now, legally I can't testify in favor of it even though I helped draft it. And Senator Watson brought it forward and it was trying to get more land use authority to counties in Texas. And it got just beat up really bad. But we aren't going to be able to control growth along the I-35 Corridor anywhere in the state unless counties have more authority.

Finally, somebody asked and Rafael gave a really extraordinarily interesting answer to, how does the outside community view Texas architecture? And I just want to reiterate what he said and sort of put my own spin on it. First, the icon, the Kimball museums, the other architectural treasures of the state, Texans have invested in incredible architecture, much done by SOM and Philip Johnson and others. But that we know.

The other two things he pointed out is sort of the regional modernism that has developed in Texas largely because of O'Neill Ford's leadership originally carried on by Lake/Flato and Overland and Larry Speck. And there's a real link in that architecture to an authenticity that is Texas. The problem, or the challenge, with that architecture is how we scale it up to larger projects, larger buildings. Certainly the work that Boone and his colleagues are doing over at the Pearl brewery, and others, does that. But it's not quite had that impact yet that I think there are a lot of lessons with the more residential and smaller scale architecture.

And finally, Rafael pointed out Austin and Austin's leadership in the sustainability area and I think maybe a message there is we shouldn't keep all the weirdness in Austin; maybe it's time to unleash some of that weirdness because there's a lot of innovation going on there that has transferability to the rest of the state.

Audience: Yes, just some comments about immigration. I mentioned this to Marilyn and others last night, that Dowell Myers is a University of Southern California demographer who's been questioning some of these demographic trends, and one of them is the rise in Hispanic population is predicated on a continued increase in migration from Mexico and Latin America. He said already in Southern California they're seeing a tailing off of immigration for two reasons: one of them is that the economy is in poor shape, particularly sectors that illegals work in, like construction, and so forth; they are lacking opportunities. The second thing is that we're running out of Mexicans. I know it's a striking thing, but the average Mexican woman of childbearing years according to Dowell in 1970 had 6.8 children; the average Mexican woman of childbearing years now is having 2.2 children. We don't have this incredible increase in population.

Secondly, I'm just fascinated by that presentation. I've heard others like it and I think some people find it shocking or think this is just a fundamental change in American civilization which has always been English-speaking. If you go back a century there was a very similar line of reasoning, the concerns were about eastern and southern European immigration. There were all these Italians and Greeks and Jews and Russians and Poles and so forth who were going to overwhelm the "old stock" Americans. But what happened is that we built urban school systems across the country that allowed generations of immigrants from faraway places to become part of the mainstream society.

That's what we need to do again. We need to make sure that everybody here and everybody that's coming here is pulled into the mainstream of society and into this civilization and into this economy. The key to that is going to be inclusion. We've got to invest in education primarily, but the other services that immigrants need to become part of the mainstream. If we don't do it we're going to end up with a highly polarized society that won't work.

Mr. Powell: I want to add something about what you just said. It's very interesting and it relates to Steve Murdock. When he was here in 2000 at our meeting and talking to us about growth worldwide, he showed us a chart of fertility rates that were inversely proportional to literacy. It would seem that we should be thinking of applying that principle in our projections, but we are not. As Hispanics come into the country and become assimilated and then become literate, their fertility rate is going to fall off. He said it's inexorable; it always happens. We can expect, in fact, that there will be a real question about some current population projections. I think that's very important to consider.

Audience: But we still have a problem. The folks that are here and the kids that are here, we've got to pull them in.

Mr. Powell: More questions from the audience?

Audience: Fred Pfieffer. Just a comment on this. I talked with Steve after his presentation. I said, you know your charts were all so clear. What is our President? Is he black or white, the President coming in? What about the greatest golfer in the world, what is he? And then I said, you know, I've got one daughter who's married to a black, I've got another daughter who was married to a Hispanic, and my grandchildren are half and half. There is so much blurring in that really. And he said, well, the Census didn't do that; we're going to be doing that. So those charts really weren't right. What you're saying is the melting pot is going to work but we have to really work on it to work, as far as I'm concerned.

Audience: While we're setting up, just one of those anecdotal things, my daughter lives in New York and she's dating a Santa Dominican man by way of Dallas. My son lives is San Francisco and he's dating a Chinese-American. I'm not sure either one of them will produce children as a result of those relationships, but I think certainly you're right that these things are blurring a lot.

Audience: In Southern California I know 40 percent of the marriages are interracial marriages and that number's going way up.

Audience: My name is Ann Brinkerhoff. I was recently obliged to go to a funeral and this brought up the land use problem there. With increasing population and not everybody choosing cremation, where will we put all these people? I understand that a lot of city people are going out to the small towns and buying plots. But I see this as a problem.

Audience: What they do in Italy, of course, is they just rent the spaces. You lease them for 50 or 100 years and then by then you're forgotten, so then you're recycled with someone else.

Mr. Powell: That's part of the cradle-to-cradle idea

Audience: Lonn Taylor. I would like to hear the panel's thoughts on the connections or possible conflict between compactness and density and historic preservation. And I'm provoked to ask this question by the mayor of Austin's description last night of what he called the West Campus which 40 years ago was a neighborhood full of some of the best late nineteenth and early twentieth century dwelling houses in Austin. Now it’s all high-rise apartments and parking garages. So my question is what is going to be the role of historic preservation in our cities in the next 40 years?

Panelist: I think it's got to play a very strong part in all of this. I don't think we need to trade off historic preservation for density. And that's the brilliance of Texas urbanization and urban planning is that we have hundreds of thousands of acres of parking lots and strip malls and all this other stuff, nothing historic about any of it, all of it ripe for redevelopment.

We had some of the slides yesterday from Fort Worth, you know, the simulation of going from the Godforsaken-anywhere-USA crossroads with a parking lot and a gas station and then turning it into six-story apartment buildings and ground floor retail. I mean, that's where the opportunities are and we shouldn't have to trade off historic neighborhoods and districts because those places are the touchstones to the past.

That's a big part of the amenity package that Fritz and Marilyn are talking about that's going to attract people back into cities. We should never have to trade those things off. And it's a reason not to be blowing away those nice bungalow-districts on the west side of Austin.

Panelist: It's actually interesting to me. We were talking to Mayor Wynn last night about this. And apparently, I may have this wrong, but what I understood from him was in order to save something it takes a super-majority of the council which is six of seven votes. I think it ought to be the opposite. I think to tear it down it ought to be a super-majority. I think that in general the default for the landmarks and the neighborhoods that have retained their value or can regain their value is to save them; they are the same kind of asset that open space is. Exactly what Bob said, it contributes the authenticity but it's a reason we want to live some places. And I think we ought to make it a default proposition to save these things and prove that we need to tear them down, rather than vice versa.

Panelist: Let me add to what Marilyn just said. From my personal experience in both Seattle and in Philadelphia; two cities that are quite different from each other in many ways. Back in the '70s a group of us fought to save the public market and Pioneer Square in Seattle where the city’s fathers were intent on tearing them down to build some new high-rise condominiums and a convention center.

The net result of our success was not only to get the mayor and half of the city council thrown out of office but also to save the Pike Place market and Pioneer Square which then were recycled as buildings to be reused. The market remained as a market. But what's happened is they became magnets for urban development and everybody wanted to be near these nice things that had then gotten saved and had artists and very nice shops move into them. They functioned almost like a park, as Marilyn just said, in terms of providing a thing of quality, a thing of historic memory and experience and also a change of pace and scale, an identify for that city.

The same thing happened in Philadelphia but largely due to tax credits for historic preservation. Parts of the old city were retained and there was bonuses given to people and tax deferrals for people who took old industrial buildings on the eastern edge of the city, what we call "old city," near Independence Hall. And now, it's full up; you can't get in. The condominiums cost too much. Every time anybody tries to tear anything down there's a huge fight.

But the density has shot way up and on all the little missing teeth and all the vacant parcels in the parking lots high-rise buildings and taller buildings have been going up. And so now there is somewhat of a struggle to keep from having too much density in areas that have become very desirable. Paris is a low-rise, high-density city; so is Philadelphia. And density doesn't just mean Manhattan.

Audience: Laurie Olin here. There are all kinds of density if you use your head. I went for a walk this morning. I know San Antonio a little and I'm fond of it, but this place is dying of open space. There are parking lots all over the place. There's empty space all over, that's just terrible. There's abandonment and everything right near the core of the city. There's lots of room for development; it doesn't all have to parasite on the river. It doesn't have to sprawl in the countryside either. Very reasonable development could take place here. Millions of square feet could be added to the city without destroying it. And that's true in every American city.

Panelist: One of the things I would comment on, Laurie, is something I didn't learn until we had a design committee meeting in Paris, but the formula in Paris really is that the people that can live in any given block can support the commercial at the first level. So in a sense it's not all perfectly balanced, of course, but that makes the streets of Paris very alive indeed because the people are there, the shops are there and the equation works.

I think San Antonio has a lot of open space, but one of the wonderful things about San Antonio is that it’s almost 300 years old. And one of the wonderful things is that layering of history. And the discussion that Lonn brought up about our history and about making sure we retain it, I think of Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath when the women were in Oklahoma. They were searching through their things and seeing what they could put on the wagon they had, the little truck that they could take to California.

And they were throwing things out that they couldn't take and one woman commented, How will we know it's us without our things? And our things really are our history and the layers of history that make a city interesting, and we don't want to throw those out. And I think we all feel that way. Sometimes we don't exactly accomplish it.

Audience: Michael Granoff. One of the unintended consequences of making cities livable is that they're often made livable just for the wealthy. New York City, for example, has certainly become much more livable in the last 20 years than it was when I grew up in New York. But at the same time, unless you work on Wall Street, it's pretty hard to afford an apartment in Manhattan. Even Brooklyn Heights has become gentrified.

In Austin we see the same phenomena. Clarksville used to be affordable. East Austin was traditionally Hispanic and black. Now it's becoming gentrified. So how do you make cities livable and yet livable for those who work in the city such as teachers, policemen and office workers?

Panelist: I think the answer is we've got to make more livable places. We've got to make enough livable places, we don't have enough gentry to go around. You go to New York, and the great thing that's happened in New York is that neighborhoods that were in terminal decline a generation ago have been rebuilt. The whole area in the South Bronx that was Fort Apache, the Bronx and The Bonfire of the Vanities country and so forth, where it was all vacant lots and so forth, it's all been rebuilt. Those are middle class neighborhoods. Those are not upscale neighborhoods.

New York's added a million residents over the past 15 years. It's on track to add a million more over the next 15 years. Those are not all wealthy people. Neighborhoods all over the city have been reclaimed as working class and middle class neighborhoods. And in part it's about the things that we're talking about here. It's about providing quality, public service, it's really what Mike Bloomberg and before me, Rudy Giuliani were about: public safety, public services, schools, making things work, so that people from every income group want to be in the city. We've had a really interesting process in New York and over the last generation we've had complete turnaround in regional development trends.

Last year for almost the tenth year in a row, we had more housing starts in New York City than we had in all 26 suburban counties in the Tri-State area, going down to Princeton and all the way up to New Haven. It's crazy now but in the last year before the bust started (2006) we had something like 50,000 new housing starts in the five boroughs of New York City, and on Long Island we had about 2,500 housing starts on the entire island.

So people are really voting with their feet to get back into New York and other cities around the country that are dealing with the fundamentals. I like Marilyn's punch list: safe, attractive, quality services, good mobility systems, transit systems and so forth. Do those things and people are going to want to be in cities at every income group.

Audience: My name is Ellen Temple and I'm from the Piney Woods, 100 miles straight north of Houston in a rural area. We're starting to feel the pressure of urbanization in many ways. We have worked up a green infrastructure plan for Angelina County where I live. And we're working with the conservation fund. In the run up to the bill on infrastructure that will be presented to the President right away, there is a lot of discussion about green infrastructure. How does that parallel what we call gray infrastructure planning?

Panelist: I think the answer is yes and I think the answer is also that we don't know yet what the details are. It'd be interesting to Senator Bradley’s thoughts on how the Congress is going to handle this legislation. I would imagine they're going to have some very general guidelines for the administration to administer, but in terms of defining the categories of projects.

What I said yesterday was that the thing I'm concerned about is that they're going to send the money out to the state DOTs and TxDOT and all the others are going to just do a lot of paving contracts; they're going to be adding extra lanes on urban highways, and so forth. That's a disaster, I think, for the kinds of interests that we're talking about here.

As recently as yesterday's radio address, the President-elect used the term "green infrastructure" and "green jobs,” what does that mean? I think that's yet to be defined but it's the kinds of water systems and waste management systems that we've been talking about here that apply in small towns.

I have a friend in western Massachusetts in Ashfield, population 1,200, who built, the sewer board and they built a solar aquatic greenhouse sewage treatment plant for this little village center in the Berkshire Hills. The outcome of this stuff is basically compost that people use in their gardens so that there's no solid waste coming out of it and the water quality is good. We're working with a group of researchers on a technology that would capture carbon or carbon dioxide from power generation and use it as the feed stock for greenhouses that would grow algae that would essentially become biofuels and would also become food, animal feed and that sort of thing.

So there are all these technologies out there that I think are going to be pursued and explored, and so forth. As I understand they're also talking about research and alternative energy technologies that would be funded by the "recovery." It's kind of interesting; they're not using the word "stimulus."

Panelist: Just a really quick comment. The President-elect was on Meet the Press this morning, while y'all were having your business meeting probably. He said two things right away when they asked what the economic recovery package was going to be. He said, well, we're looking at shovel-ready projects and the governors have a long list of those that they have shared with me. But his next sentence was: we are going to look for those that have long-term value, How much effect we'll be able to have in this short time before the economic recovery package is put in place, I think, is a real question. But watch for the next transportation bill, which will probably come up in about September. Here's a place where we really do have an opportunity to press the case, to talk about green infrastructure, to talk about the creation of green jobs and to do what we are all talking about here which is to try transformation, climate change and land use all together in ways where we can really begin to express a public will that we want to change the form of develop in this country.

Panelist: If I could add a little bit more to that as well. Often when people see those mega-region drawings that Bob and colleagues have done, one question that comes up, what if I don't live in a mega-region; what if I'm outside of that? And Bob, on his website, has developed a green infrastructure strategy. It's sort of a strategy for those other areas. When I looked at Steve Shelton's presentation I noticed incredible landscapes that exist here in Texas and I look at the Edwards Aquifer and the Hill Country. Any place else in the world that would be a national park.

And you look at New York City's incredible vision to protect its watersheds to ensure good drinking water. And you look at New Jersey, I mean the Pinelands, the amazing effort that the citizens of New Jersey did to protect the Pinelands, mainly because of the water resources that were there. If you're interested in sort of one level of green infrastructure, Bob and I have something there that you might be interested in.

Panelist: I knew Fritz wouldn't mind my popping up in the middle of friends here but Bob's website which has a lot of these suggestions; I printed out a bunch for you to pick up if you want to go look further into that. It’s all right on this chair. Or you can write it down. It's And the article that Fritz and I authored about landscape preservation is in there.

Audience: I'm Lloyd Lochridge again. At the close yesterday I left this good body with something of a question. And coming out of my own experience and what's going on these days. I think I just heard a member of the panel mention this, that in the headline of the morning paper President-elect Obama had made some announcement that he has in mind addressing the problem of unemployment by large expenditures of public works administration. I think the fellow was listening when I was talking here, but I don't know how he did it. And I promise you I've not discussed it with him yet.

Mr. Pelli: Lloyd, one of the things that always interested me is if you took an inventory of the places that are memorable in Texas, outside of the natural beauty, you would find one WPA project after another. Most of the powerful things in Texas were created in those ten years and so even though there have been some criticisms that these kinds of projects, WPA projects, don't necessary revive unemployment enough, at least we got something. We got the backbone of the really great things of the state between 1930 and 1940.

Panelist: And I don't know whether this situation currently is going to be long enough and that is an issue about whether or not those kinds of programs can develop again, but certainly we're much richer for it.

Mr. Pelli: There's not a national park in America that doesn't have some of its best facilities built in the period between 1934 and World War II from those programs. Here in San Antonio, the Riverwalk, of course, began as a flood control project by the WPA and then was taken over by the city and continued as a WPA project; the architect's office was right there on the canal basically, on the river.

Panelist: Well, actually it started as a beautification project. So the San Antonio River, Alamo Stadium, Landa Park, Garner Park, just go around, everything that was built, everything we use today, it was all WPA.

Mr. Pelli: I was going to say that there are things other than highways, of course, and one of them has to do with water. And not just piping water but controlling floods and handling storm water, and of course, we're currently working on a big project on the Mill River in Connecticut with the Corps of Engineers and the City of Stamford, which just basically began as a project to reorganize the river so that it would work better, more naturally. And in the course of it, the park part of it that's along is the cheap part. It really is the inexpensive part of the public amenities that come from it.

Panelist: It just proves that we subvert projects whenever we get a chance to add what we want to add. Right?

Mr. Pelli: Exactly.

Audience: Fred Pfieffer . I've been in public works all of my adult life. Maintainability needs to be part of it whether it's a building you're building or designing, public works project or whenever. Can it be maintained? And that ought to be in that equation and in all the professionals' minds. Can it be maintained? Because I've seen so many things, big money spent on it and all of a sudden, big maintenance problems.

Audience: My name is Fairfax Randall and I am here listening to so many beautiful bright minds and so stimulated, but I want to put before us, for all of you that are so thoughtful and creative, that we have a serious problem which is Galveston. Galveston has just been devastated. The University of Texas regents are abandoning UTMB. I just want to throw this at us all to see if these great minds and these energetic people might be concerned about what's right in our neighborhood going on right now. And it is very tragic and very serious.

Panelist: I know a lot about Galveston; I work there a lot. And I think the issue at Galveston, and maybe we don't realize it, but it's much more serious than the New Orleans issue. Fundamentally, it's much more endangered because of the job base. New Orleans is the port, a great refining area. It's located in such a way as the communication point on the whole center of America. It will not die, but Galveston is in dire straits right now.

Panelist: After Katrina, Bob and I and several others put together a map of hazards along the Gulf Coast and two days before Ike hit I got a call from FEMA asking me if we had any maps they could use to look at what the devastation was going to be. And so we provided the maps. We had done it pro bono and Bob and Barbara Faga and others who put these maps together, we all watched it all happen and it was so accurate it was unbelievable. And we've been working with FEMA since.

The whole Gulf Coast has a relationship between climate change; the warming of the Gulf of Mexico, where hurricanes are going to occur, how we plan for that, is a matter of great importance for Texas and the rest of the southeastern United States.

Panelist: I have another comment on that and that is that the conclusion of those maps forecasts and increase in the number and severity of Atlantic and Gulf Coast hurricanes and that we're likely to see a lot more damage. By the time we were done, about $120 billion of public money plus when you figure in private insurance, about one-half trillion dollars were spent rebuilding after Katrina.

And what those maps concluded is that virtually everything that was rebuilt outside of New Orleans and a handful of other places that have levies is basically going to get wiped out again next time we have a big storm. And your tax dollars are going to continue to bail these places out. It makes absolutely no sense.

The rest of the world is making some enlightened decisions about where urban development is going to be permitted and where coastlines are going to be armored. It gets back to the other problem in New Orleans; we've rebuilt for a 25-year storm or a 30-year storm, a category 3 hurricane, I guess. The Dutch coast, they're armoring the coast in the settled areas for a 10,000-year storm.

I live in Stamford, Connecticut, where Laurie's working on this project and we're one of three cities in America that has a hurricane barrier. Now, how did that happen? Providence and New Bedford in New England are the other two places. It happened because we had two hurricanes within a generation which flooded the downtown, killed a lot of people, did a lot of damage. That seems to be what it takes.

So maybe what it'll take in Galveston. It's been a century since the last storm; maybe we need to have another one. And we're going to have to make some enlightened decisions about where to armor the coastline, where we want population growth and development to occur, where we're going to continue to bail people out and where we're not going to. And we just haven't been able to do that as a civilization. I suspect that this is one of the things we're going to have to do. Those maps are also on Bob's web page, by the way.

Audience: I'm Ramona Davis from Houston and I wanted to go back to the topic of historic preservation which is my field, and how important it is. Just a couple of thoughts: we like to say that the greenest building is the one that's already built when you think about time, labor, transportation, energy, materials and to tear all that down.

The other thought is going to assimilation of immigrants here. The journalist Richard Rodriguez who lives in L.A. spoke in Houston about ten years ago. We invited him to come. He doesn't say that he was illegal with his family but he implies it. He said that the one thing that helped him assimilate into the American culture was going to the movies in a beautiful movie house in Pasadena. That's since been torn down and Safeway replaced it. He wonders how immigrants will assimilate into this culture, into the mainstream, if they don't have the visible symbols of the American dream. The odd thing is those movie houses that attract so many people, so many immigrants who can experience the American dream, were echoes of architecture from other cultures, Egyptians for example, lots of different cultures are built into those movie houses.

But just a thought on assimilation and how important it is to hang on to the culture here because that's why people come here. They want to be part of this culture, and that's the way we bring them in -- one way.

Panelist: I would like to comment on that. About three or four years ago I was in Dallas on a Sunday morning and I turned on the TV on Meet the Press and Laura Bush and Caroline Kennedy were on, kind of an unlikely pair, talking about education and libraries. And they started to talk about the importance of architecture and design of school.

And Laura Bush said that when she was growing up that the school was the cathedral of knowledge and that the school was the most beautiful building in the neighborhood. Again, going back to the investment of education, public education had so much to do with the assimilation that Bob mentioned earlier, but we were investing in those cathedrals of knowledge, those schools, and making them very important.

Laurie and I have been working a lot in China the last couple of years and you go around a Chinese neighborhood and the most important building, the building that has the most public investment, is the school. And it's obvious. I love the movie theaters but I hope we also invest in schools and libraries.

Panelist: Is Gary Jacobs of Laredo here? This is such a fun group to be a part of. And I guess I'm going to take Rafael's position and say, thank you very much for so generously including all of us. Mr. Jacobs extended our conversation to about eleven o'clock last night via my BlackBerry. And if he were here I'd ask his permission; if he isn't I guess I just get to say it. He wrote about assimilation in a different way but I think an important way.

The concept of the Texas Triangle really should be expanded to include Monterey, Saltillo, Mexico. This area has a population of approximately five million people, lots of industry. There's a population in the lower Rio Grande of approximately two million on the U.S. side and another million on the Mexican side. Point is, in terms of sustainability, we have to think in terms of geography and economics, not political boundaries. And then he had a great line. He said, Lou Dobbs wants to build walls and we want to assimilate northern Mexico into a sustainable development vision. I thought that was just great and we're sharing. So, thank you.

Mr. Yaro: Point of information. When you go to the website and look at the map you'll see what we've done is to show what the urban core of it is, which really is the heart of the Texas Triangle, these five cities. But we've indicated with shading the kind of area of economic and political influence in places that need to be included. And the Texas Triangle and the Gulf Coast mega-regions, we've extended them down to Monterey. Go to the Pacific Northwest, the one at Cascadia goes up obviously north of Vancouver, and so forth. That's why I said five of these places including the Texas Triangle and the Gulf Coast extend into Mexico and into Canada.

Panelist: I think we should thank you very much for stimulating us and making us have to think more carefully than we sometimes do. It's been a pleasure to be here. People have been very warm and friendly but they've also been very provocative and poked at us, which I think is very helpful. Thank you. Boone, thank you for your leadership with this as well. It's been inspirational and you've just been great to work with on this.

Mr. Powell: It was a great pleasure to do this this year. Herding cats is not as difficult as I thought it was. I did survive. Thank you very much for your attention. You've been a wonderful audience.