Is Mission-Driven Design Good for Cities?​

[Music] Welcome to Good For Cities, the podcast where we look at the ideas, policies, and projects shaping urban life, and ask the big question, "Are they actually making our cities better?" I'm Maddie Simeotiki, Director of the Infrastructure Institute at the University of Toronto School of Cities. Today's episode is about the role of architects in shaping more inclusive and sustainable cities. As cities grapple with climate change, housing pressures, and growing inequality, there is also an opportunity for architects and urban planners to challenge traditional ways of approaching city building to advocate for urban change. In this episode, I'm joined by Niasha Harper-Michon, an architect whose work sits at the intersection of design, advocacy, and community engagement. Niasha describes herself as an "archivist," as she intentionally blends architecture and activism to challenge conventional approaches to city building. So what does it mean to practice as an "archivist?" How can city builders bridge community need and development? What can be achieved from working outside traditional development systems, and what are some of the avenues to create your own path as a city builder? And in a moment where there is growing pushback against sustainability and inclusion, what role can "archivism play" in shaping the future of our cities? These are some of the questions we explore in this episode. [Music] Hi, Niasha. Welcome to the show. Hi. Thanks so much for having me, Maddie. I'm excited to chat with you. So the place to start, I've been looking on your website, and you call yourself an "archivist," which I think is a combination of an architect and an activist. So let's start with how do you envision the type of work that you do? What is an "archivist?" So "archivist," yes, as you said, it's that delightful blend of architects and activists, and it's a term that I coined that's really for any architect or built environment professional or enthusiast, even, who are driving some kind of change, whether it's environmental, social, economic, to foster just positive changes in society and in the built environment. So it's quite large as a term, but I think it's also, it also came about to sort of be an opposition to architecture being a protected title, and with good reason. But what I liked about the idea of activists and activism is that it's much more inclusive and open to the myriad of people who are involved in shaping our cities, shaping the built environment, that aren't necessarily professionally involved, but also doing a lot of work that's super important. So that's a bit the how activism came about and what the term means. And then in my own career, it's meant a lot, it's in the same vein, I always wanted to be an architect, my whole life. And then when I became a licensed architect, I started seeing, I'm not sure that this is the best way for me to have the impact that I'd like to have. And so the idea of activists is being able to influence the built environment, contribute to it being more resilient, more inclusive, more equitable, but through different ways. I've had many titles other than architect. And so, yeah, activists kind of sums up this mix of the work that I've done. Do you consider yourself coming at city building from an activist position or a professional position? How do you think of how you position your role in city building now? That's a great question. I think it's a bit of both because I studied architecture and have worked throughout my career, I've always worked within organizations that are in the built environment. But at the same time, I do a lot of work volunteering and serving on boards of community organizations, for example, one of the first ones I was involved in was women make the city an Amsterdam. And it was about women in neighborhoods who were involved in what their city should look like, what it should be like, how it could serve their communities, but weren't professionals in the field. And it was really about how they could have a meaningful role in the process of urban planning for their neighborhoods. And so that's very much outside of the realm of traditional city building. So it's for me, it's been kind of having one foot in both, but I've been more based on my day jobs within the within the more traditional sort of sector. But I think it's important to be thinking about both the cities for everyone and the majority of the people aren't in our sector in their day jobs. So being able to understand what's going on and how people are thinking about their cities. But also being able to influence it from within, I think has been an important part of my own career and shaping what I think, like different roles that we can have to create cities. Since you've had roles both within the more established professional side of architecture and city building as well as from the outside, let's start with the inside. What can be achieved when you work within professional architecture or city planning or city building professions. What is best achieved from the inside that you can actually see the types of change in cities that that you might want to accomplish. And lots that we can do. I think when I was working as a designer as an architect, personally, I remember there was a lot of discussions about the types of projects that we were doing and when we would get a brief, we would say, oh, you know, this is such a shame because there's so many things that should have been done differently or they should be asking different questions for us to answer in the first place. So I got involved in business development and marketing aspects of architecture to be able to speak to the developers to the investors to the city and try to shape the actual brief. What are the designers actually going to be working on? Let's think a little further upstream. And there I found that I was able to have a lot of impact because you can of course choose the types of clients that you're working with. But you can also help to speak their language, you know, sometimes with projects, there's how the outcome that we may want that may be more understandable to the general public in terms of, you know, might be more green and and have great social services and diversity. Both in the built environment, but also in the types of people and socioeconomic backgrounds of people that will live in the neighborhood. But how does that, how can we talk to developers about that? Aside from those sort of values driven aspects, what are the KPIs? What are the things that they are looking at and how can we translate some of that and communicate it sometimes in a way where we're not talking about those final outcomes, but more in terms of having community support of a project can really help in accelerating a project and make sure that it's finished on time because any delays due to a community not supporting a project can be extremely costly, which is something that certain developers can understand. So speaking their language can be, was I felt a great way to be able to be the bridge between getting what you want to have, but then being able to speak to those that are commissioning the projects in the end and paying for them because there has to be that, that sort of win, win feel for everyone involved. So in your experience then the flip side, what are the limitations of working within the system when you're working in professional architecture or design, what, what, how can that be limited in terms of what you're able to accomplish? Well, I think that within the system, there's, the system is, is made in a certain way, right? And so there are certain paths that are already set out as to how certain projects will go on as to who will be involved, etc. So when you're within a system, the great thing is that you can understand it and you see what's going on, but from outside, I think that sometimes you can point out what's going on that isn't right and you can highlight opportunities for, for change in a way that from within, it's not quite the same, but I think you need a bit of both. You need that intrapreneurship as well within organizations to be able to say, let's do things differently, you know, from within, I understand the system, I understand how we do things and therefore I have a good grasp as to what might work and what might not pass at certain times to be able to, to work on that one of one of the things I had worked on, I worked in a global architecture office and we were working on a seven year plan. And I was leading the commercial strategy and so of course in a for profit architecture office, you know, a lot of the commercial strategies important, but what I was really trying to do there was trying to embed the social aspects and environmental aspects into that commercial plan to make sure that it was embedded into the way that we were going to be doing work for the next seven or so years, so 2030. And so thinking about it from within there, I knew the system, I had the tools to be able to embed it fully, but of course having. having some outside critique also helps to be able to push things even further than one might, you know, within the boundaries, let's say. Yeah, that's what I find too, as an academic, we're often on the outside looking in at these processes. And I find, you know, the commercial imperative is always there. And people are sometimes limited in what they can say, because I mean, they're within a professional organization, and that organization has clients or has a position. And I think this takes us to, I think, what it means to work outside the system. What have you found in the roles that you've had outside, whether you're working as an activist or with non-governmental organizations? What have been your experience there? And how can you push the envelope that maybe you couldn't in ways when you work inside a traditional organization? Yeah, no, you definitely make a good point with what you can do and can't do from within. So I think that being able to do things outside of the system helps to, yeah, to be able to push the envelope even more, and ask questions that you may not necessarily be able to from within. And I think it helps, because I think the outcome is usually that sometimes it might seem radical from within, but it kind of helps to push further, even if the outcome is kind of, it gets pushed back a little bit, but it helps to push things even further. And of course, say the things that are, you know, unsaid in certain spaces and in certain contexts. And it, yeah, definitely helps to, to awaken sort of dormant, or not processes, but get people thinking about things that they may not have have dared to from within. So I think it's definitely an important thing to do. I find that too as an academic that when we're playing the role of, you know, saying things that are sometimes unsayable, it really does push the envelope and help move the conversation. And ironically, I find actually that a lot of the times the people internally know these things, they just might not actually be able to say them. And so you're often voicing an opinion that is widely held, but rarely said, and that can help move the needle on how organizations think and what's possible actually. Exactly. I think it really helps. And you would mention some things about silos in the pre-shats. And I think that's a big one where when you're working within a system, sometimes you're up against these silos where there's silo thinking different departments, different ministries, different teams that are looking at different things, have different budgets, have different systems. And from the outside, I think that those are moments where you can start to see more of a holistic approach to things and then be able to come up with solutions that from within in a very silo and fragmented system, which the built environment and building sector in general, very fragmented. I think that that really helps to come up with innovative ideas because silos is, I think at all levels, one example that I always think is quite telling of silos is at one of the offices that I was working at architecture office. We had worked on a university building. And in this building, there was on the top floor, there were large classrooms and they had overhead projectors to be used in the classrooms. And one of the issues was silos between the AV department and the building real estate department. And the AV equipment was such that it was about one meter 50, these huge overhead projectors. So they needed space and clearance in the building. So the building, the floor height had to be a certain height in these classrooms. But it would mean that the whole building would have to be higher. But because essentially these teams are so siloed and budgets were different, etc. The AV team didn't have budget to get new projectors that are much smaller nowadays. And so the whole building is one meter higher, the whole building. And so we think of the cost of that, the whole facade, all the finishes, the carbon impact, essentially because of silos. I think it's very telling of, and this is in a micro sort of scale, but it's the same in terms of ministries when we think of one that is going to be looking more at housing, another that would be tackling health, another tackling more climate related issues. And sometimes we need solutions, well not sometimes, all the time. We need solutions that are going to bring all of these together, tap into all of these budgets, all of these processes, all of these work plans. But the siloed sort of ways of large organizations means that then sometimes we come up with solutions that only address one. And yeah, that is a problem for the resilience of the full system. But it's something we see everywhere, but I think it's really something we have to tackle. And that outside our perspective, I think helps to look at these issues and see, well, this is not just a housing problem, or this is not just a health problem. How can we really combine these? But we need those inside system folks to be able to say, okay, well, how can we actually do that within these systems? So it's a mix. Oh my god, you brought up so many thoughts for me, because I mean, we started a school of cities at the University of Toronto for exactly this reason, to try to break down the silos between the academic disciplines and training students in being able to go out and work across those silos, so to speak, or those professional disciplines in order to work that's for the betterment of cities. And yet it's just been so challenging. Those disciplines are so deeply ingrained in terms of the professional credentialization and just in terms of how we see ourselves and the work we do, whether it's me as an urban planner or you as an architect or someone else as an engineer, why do you think those have persisted even though there's such a broad recognition about collaboration and multi-disciplinary, it's just been so hard, whether it's within academia or in professional practice, it's just been so hard to get over this idea of everyone working in their own silo. Yeah, it's true that it's very clear that it's an issue across the board. I know from the architecture profession that yeah, it's quite an insular profession. I was lucky to do my, I did my undergrad in Paris and there I was in an architecture school which was very much only architects, we had our own building, we're not even in the French system, you're not attached to the universities in the same way, it's part of the ministry of culture and so it's not exactly the same, so very separate from everyone else so that doesn't help, I think, as a starting point, but I did my masters where it was, it was in an academy where we were mixed with urban and landscape architects. Okay, it's not fully with everyone else, but at least there was a lot of exchange and I think that that helped being in an environment, seeing other others that are working in the same field, but then there's a myriad of other professionals that are working in the built environment. So I think to start off in general, the forces are quite, you know, linked to whatever it is that you're studying and quite, quite insular, at least I know in the schools that I studied at, I'm not sure how it is over here, but that start means that you're already in this world where you're only with people who are in your profession and the architecture profession for me was very insular, so hence, activism that came to be a little bit more open-minded as to what, you know, we could do with these skills even, because I think the career tracks are quite linear, the goals of young architects are often to be an architect, be a stark attack, to be involved in in running their own practice and there's so many different ways of doing that. So I think we have some work to do to inject a bit more of the reality also of the profession into schools. I did a masters where I was studying and working at the same time, which I also think influenced my thinking because I was working and seeing the profession and also able to design my own projects and shape it in school, so it started to shape my idea of what an architect was in the first place. But there's a lot of work to do to see that we're working together and not sort of fighting over a small piece of something because I feel that that's also a bit of the discussion. I know part of it a lot in the architecture offices was the engineers are taking over our part of the project. How can we maintain our importance in the whole sort of building value chain? So there's a bit of a feeling of, you know, we need to take what's ours and keep it and maintain it the way that it is as opposed to being a bit more flexible. And of course the licensing and registering of these professions also makes it. Yeah, I mean people always say that city building is a team sport, but it's a team sport until your profession is being edged out and at which point everyone is trying to guard their turf and make sure that they, you know, still have a place in this game. I want to shift gears a little bit and talk about the type of work you do because your work has been very explicitly focused on creating cities that are more sustainable, more inclusive, more just, more regenerative. And I wanted to ask what has it been like in this current moment where it seems like there's been a pushback against some of these ideas and against equity and inclusion, against sustainability. What has been your experience practicing with those sets of goals in this current moment? Yeah, it's a very strange time because, indeed, there is quite a bit of pushback and especially I think the main thing is the budget cuts and and less initiatives that are being funded or supported or publicly being supported. So it's a very strange time but it's a time that then asks for rethinking of things which can be an exciting time in a sense to think of, okay, how things were before. We've maybe taken certain things for granted in terms of the landscape and understanding that things are changing, so we also need to change our approach a bit. I think for me, the same aspect of speaking the language, for example, of developers when I was doing business development or investors, etc, for architecture offices is trying to understand the language and rethinking sometimes how things are packaged. So some of the same projects can still go through but not necessarily packaged in the same way, which sometimes can be disappointing because certain aspects will just not be able to get the funding that they would need and others will then come forward. But I think it's yeah, a little bit of storytelling and being flexible with how we're discussing things to make sure that they're still embedded, they're still there but they may not be the focal point at this moment because it may not, it may not, yeah, fit with the discourse or what organizations are comfortable with, etc. But yes, it is a difficult time, I think. I think one of the things that's interesting to me is that some of what had been happening, you know, when there was this really big fast increase in investment and emphasis on whether it's EDI or whether it was sustainability, is there was a lot of performative actions and a lot of people saying things to kind of be with the zeitgeist and of the moment. And now that the pendulum has swung back the other way, it's revealed perhaps, but it's also clarified. And I think that's interesting too. Like it's created space as you said where now we can see which initiatives are actually viable. You know, whereas before people were just racing in, it was kind of speculative and people doing it for all sorts of reasons. And now you're kind of left with the things that are real. And one of the things I hope is that the things that are real are things that will have a long-term impact and will be, you know, are both financially sustainable, but also the ones that have the most social good. Not, you know, people's hair-brained schemes that were cooked up very quickly to be very visible, but things that are actually long-term and can persist. I wonder how you think about, you know, there is obviously disappointment as attention has waned, but you mentioned it, I think. Like there is opportunity too. Yeah, yeah, definitely. There definitely is. And there's still lots of programs that will continue on and that will, and as you said, will be the ones that will look to, to say, you know, okay, even within that climate, they were able to continue on because it was it was real. And especially the organizations that are funding it and that are doing these types, this type of work are genuine and are serious about it. And like you said, it's not just because it was something of the time, so, you know, they were doing it. And that also helps to show, you know, who's really interested in some of these matters and who was kind of just hopping on the bandwagon because, so it helps to show those. And but even when, you know, some people are kind of just jumping on the bandwagon, if it keeps going in that way, it can start to really become more ingrained and more embedded into their processes. But this sort of backwards step, it will make it a little harder for the organizations that maybe did weren't as, yeah, it wasn't as innate or, or, you know, in their in their process. So we'll see how it goes. But in general, I feel like there's still a lot of a lot of appetites for these things where it matters. It's just yeah, finding the funding, finding the ability to really implement it in the way that we may have before is not quite there. Can I ask you about social media? Because I know that you've had quite the role on LinkedIn, you know, in communicating ideas about sustainable city building. And what role does LinkedIn play and social media more broadly? And being a place where some of these ideas get communicated and where there is a contest of ideas, but also that that bandwagon fills up on social media. And I, how do you how do you think of the your use of social media in communicating these ideas and trying to mobilize towards cities that are more sustainable and equitable and just? For me, LinkedIn has been a wonderful sort of partner in my career. For one, when I when I wasn't sure about my path in architecture, I I just started, you know, saying things that maybe I was noticing in the in the profession. And in my work, I started talking about it on on LinkedIn. And it brought me to a lot of different people who were having the same thoughts or who were already working in those areas, also thinking about expanding what I might do other than design. What LinkedIn was a great way of just sort of being more open about that that process. And then it brought a lot of like-minded people together. So I really feel that LinkedIn has been a community for me in terms of meeting people all across the world who are interested in similar things. And so it's been a great opportunity to learn from others. Because you know, if I talk about a topic, someone might say, Hey, have you talked to this person or do you know about this project? Have you? And so it's a great way to be able to expand my horizon in ways where pre social media, I would not have been able to at such a global scale for sure. So that's one. I think it's a wonderful, a wonderful means of building community. And then also being able to to discuss things and and point out things that are happening right now where I am, but also things that I might be seeing from connections, from other places that I've lived or other things that I'm seeing on LinkedIn. So I think it's a really nice, I think it's a really great tool to link people to link ideas to come up with great solutions. Though sometimes I do think there's there's a lot happening on LinkedIn. And with the advent of AI, there's also a lot of just crap. You have to sit through it all. Yeah. I will say I'm not on any social media. So every time I talk to someone who uses this, it's always enlightening for me to learn what you're getting out of it. Is it like do you find the experience LinkedIn maybe a bit less, but you read a lot. Is it a cesspit? Like are you like the troll farms and the you know the bot armies like is is that part of the experience or have you found that the city like conversations from people who are in the city building space tend to be more respectful? Well, it depends on the subject. So I find that I think the the ones where I've had the most comments and the most you know things that where it might be inappropriate or just ridiculous is talking about women's rights in the built environment. And there's a lot of people who have a lot to say. So I think people might like things and say oh that's a great idea or that's really interesting. But there's a lot of people who are there just to to say how ridiculous you know why are we talking about women anyway. There's a lot of that that goes on, but I find specifically specifically with those topics. Talking about biking in the city, there's a lot less people who have a very strong opinions in the negative sort of way, but on on some posts that I had done on yeah creating cities are more inclusive, especially for women, but taking from the care lands and the fact that women in our societies are often the ones that take care of dependence and take care of doing trips and cooking and and and groceries and taking kids to the doctor or taking their parents to you know to get a checkup these kinds of things and so that means that their mobility uses are different in general than male commuters who will definitely who will more often use public transport to commute to and from work. And that led to lots of discussions, but from both men and women who completely disagree with this and think it's nonsense and whatnot. So there is that. (laughs) - Do you enjoy being in those conversations? Like when it's getting heated and a little bit of back and forth, or what's the personal experience of being in the mix as these conversations kick off on your LinkedIn or other social media venues? - If it's respectful and about, yeah, difference of opinions, it's okay. Once it crosses the line of respect and it's personal attacks, I mean, there's, I don't think there's any basis for that. So that's a different experience and that's not one that's very positive, but for the most part, I think it's interesting because it can be telling of what's going on. And when we think of social media, for the most part, it creates sort of sanitized environments where you don't actually see people who disagree with you, you're only engaging with people who have similar views and you're seeing things that align with your viewpoint. When I look at my feed, it's completely different to the next person's. So in those moments, at least, you're in contact with people who obviously have a very different opinion to you. And it's important to know that that's there and to recognize that if there are certain arguments to understand, well, what are the counter arguments to something that I might think is just a no-brainer positive thing and to understand that there are these discussions happening and be aware of them because we can't live in a sanitized bubble only with people who agree and who say yes, I agree. I agree. It's good to have people who agree with you, but it's very important to have people who don't agree and have something else to bring to the table and who can then help you to make your own reflection or your own ideas stronger. So I think it's important. As long as, like I said, it's respectful and not just to be a hater, let's say, or just a comment, a comment. But there are some interesting things that come out of this. It's important, and it's also a reflection of sometimes not entirely but of part of society. So it's important to understand that it's there because it's the reality of some people. If this is what they think, we should know. That's really thoughtful. I feel the same way, actually, that respectful conversation is super important and being able to hear across difference is key and we're increasingly getting into our own bubbles where you don't hear what others are thinking, whether it's what newspaper you read, if anyone reads a newspaper anymore, what podcasts you listen to or your social media feeds and who you follow. I think all of that is becoming a smaller bubble and finding ways to get out of those is-- but in a way that's not threatening or disrespectful, but being able to hear people who have different views, I do think is important. And I will say to, I think, the reach that people can have with social media is quite remarkable. I mean, the global scale of the conversations that I see people having, that's hard to have if you're not on those platforms is something, I think, that's important. Maybe this gets at another thought. How do you avoid being cynical? I mean, this is a tough moment in so many different ways. And for someone working at the intersection of professional practice and activism with a clear eye on the environment and equity, two areas that are just-- the pendulum has swung against those recently. How do you-- when you're practiced, just avoid being cynical every day? Yeah, it's a tough one. I had actually posed this question to another leader recently because I really think, especially now, I think, with what's going on in the world, it can be difficult to fight against that cynicism that comes up. It's kind of just a game of balance. I mean, at some moments, yeah, I'll definitely say, yeah, it can take a toll. And also, in a sense of when you're working towards or working to bring about something that's good, but you have to put your whole self into it. It, of course, sometimes there's moments of burnout. And that, I feel, personally, have definitely experienced. But I think the word that I would say that is important and all of that is community. Again, back to that community, I really feel that it's so important. It's, of course, the community that you have around you. But I also feel that, again, going back to LinkedIn, in a sense, that community of people who are thinking about cities in the same way, who are trying to push the envelope wherever they are in the world. I had conversations with people in Indonesia, people in Italy. I mean, people all over the world who I've never met personally, but we've met online. That part's remarkable. Through LinkedIn. Yeah. That is remarkable. It's wonderful. And I really feel that that has-- and it helps you to feel like, OK, we can do this. And especially that global lens means that you're working with people who are doing things in places where you might, when you start to really think, and everything is relative, I think, oh, well, actually, it might be worse for you. Wow, I thought it was bad for us. But whatever is going on there is really difficult. But they'll be like, no, it's worse for-- so it helps to also say, OK, we can do this. And what tips do you have working on this in a completely different sort of moment, or maybe we've had a similar thing on our side of the world, or in the organizations I've worked in, et cetera. It really helps to have that community and support. And so I feel like that's the thing to really latch on to. And recently, I've joined a WhatsApp community for climate communicators. So for people who are doing communications related to climate, and it's wonderful. So it's just different-- there's different feeds and different things where you can get information, post jobs, have-- there's events that happen virtually and can ask anybody, people are supporting each other. And it's really something. It's quite nice to see, because lots of people have never met each other. I think there's about 500 people in this group. Now, and there's a lot of people who are quite active. If you ask a question, someone's going to answer. And it's nice to see that even within this, people are coming together in community in so many different ways, both offline and online. By way of wrapping up from both your physical travels and your travels in the virtual world and the people you're meeting, what cities are doing things effectively when it comes to combining climates with equity, happiness, and justice? Are there examples of cities that you've come across where you're like, they're doing it well? This is who could be-- really, we should be learning from. Yeah. Well, Paris for one, maybe a bit of a cliche, but it's the city where we learn. It's Paris. And I studied there. It's my love. So I think that-- yeah, I think a great city where there's been a lot of work towards all of the points you mentioned. And it's really changed over the past 10 years, even when I was studying to now. It's a completely different place. And a lot more green, a lot more bike-friendly, a lot more inclusive. And different factors, of course, I think a big piece is the leadership from the city and in really investing in the city, even though we're against some of the things as always, as with any change, but sticking with the plan and really going through. There's other factors. I think COVID also-- and there was a lot of strikes as the French are always striking. Just before COVID, there was public transport strikes. And I already at that time saw that bikes and things had picked up a lot. And COVID, as we know, in all cities across the world, really made slow mobility completely different than it was before. Another one-- The thing about Paris, Niasha, that really jumps out. I mean, you would know this based on your experience there. I think what's interesting is that as an outsider to Paris, when you go and you visit there, it just seems like it's natural. And that this progression was how it was meant to be and always was going to be. And I think the more you learn about it, and I think what's actually more inspiring than thinking it was just natural process is that it was hard fought too. And it's not perfect in Paris. And they've had their pushbacks and they've had things that haven't worked. And they still have a lot of car orientation. They have neighborhoods that have the same type of issues as in other places. And they've also had some huge successes. And I actually think that that's almost more inspiring than what you sometimes feel as an outsider. That it's parry. They just get it. It's the genus aequa. And they're just going to come to it. And it's not really actually. They've had to struggle over it, like the rest of us. it was through tangible choices and then repeated decisions at the ballot box that ended up leading them to where they are. And I actually think for us in North America, but in other parts of the world, that's a more inspiring story than just thinking this was, you know, like nature and water running down in a river. Yeah, no, absolutely. Yeah, it's, there's been a lot of campaigning to be able to get it where it is. As always, I think with anything, people are not happy with change. And especially, you know, if there's ways of working that have worked for certain, for certain people and certain organizations, you know, people feel like, well, what am I losing in this new process? So that's definitely something. And, and yeah, with the cars that's always, it's always a piece that it's, you know, the same people are then riding bikes and very happy. But, or happy that their property, now, this is a street that's a walkable street. And, and there's a lot of concerns, sometimes that are unfounded. So there's a lot of, like, the communication aspects is super important because people will say, you know, well, if we, if we do different traffic plans, you know, I'm not going to have the foot traffic to my shops, but we know that actually, you know, slow mobility, walking, you're going to get more trapped. But, but these kinds of things are fears that you can understand if you're not sure, that if you don't know that it's going to be good for you, that you can be against such plans to pedestrianize, you know, a shopping street or something in front of your shop. So there, that, that aspect of information and making sure that you're communicating these things in ways that speak to the different people and not just we're pedestrianizing the street, it's good for the city, it's good that you have to think about all the different people that are involved in that. And I think Paris has also done a really good, good job there of working with the different stakeholders and making sure that that that it works for everyone. And they'll always be those that aren't happy. But then, as you said, you know, 20 years later, everyone's like, well, it's always like this. And, we wouldn't want to go back and they forget that they were excited. And then it's a win. That's a beautiful place to add. And, Niasha, thank you so much for joining me. Thanks so much for having me. This is great. Thanks for tuning into the Good for Cities podcast where we have thoughtful discussions with industry experts and academics on timely urban topics. Our goal is to inspire conversations on innovative design and community building for better, more practical and more inclusive cities. We'd like to extend a special thanks to our guest, Niasha Harper-Michon. This episode was produced by Eva Hellreich, Ben Wood and me, Maddie Simea Tiki. Original music is by Michael Weidner. You can find this episode and more on the Infrastructure Institute website or every stream podcast, including Apple Podcasts, Spotify and Amazon Music. Be sure to tune in next time as we continue to challenge assumptions about city building. Thanks again for listening and we'll see you then. [Music]