What makes a good “place”?
This a notoriously difficult to answer, but Udo Schliemann, past guest, renowned graphic designer and accomplished artist attempts to answer that question through the lens of his own expertise and experience, with a focus on the olympics as a way to build community.
Udo is a designer and principal creative director at Entro. He was born and raised in Germany and spent half of his career there, notably being mentored by Anton Stankowski, before moving to Canada and landing at Entro.
About the podcast: Single Serves is a podcast where we interview experts on single issues of interest to architects and designers. The thought-provoking ideas shared here are intended to inspire our listeners to become well-rounded entrepreneurs who are the leaders of their field.
Credits: ©2022 Produced by Révélateur Studio & edited by Chris Rodd
Interview transcript (edited for brevity and clarity):
RVLTR: (00:04)
Can you start by telling us what is placemaking?
RVLTR: (01:36)
Well, placemaking some would say "placekeeping", is both. It's an overarching idea and it's also a hands-on approach for improving a neighborhood, but it can also extend to a city, even a region. This could be a temporary placemaking event like the Olympics or permanent improvements and placemaking, you know, inspires people to collectively, and that's the important part, collectively reimagine and reinvent public spaces as the heart of every community. So it's not a top down approach. It's an approach with the people who live there and strengthening the connection between people and the places they share. The placemaking refers to a collaborative process by which we can shape our public realm order to maximize the shared value. More than just promoting better urban design placemaking facilitates, creative patterns of use, paving, or paying particular attention to the physical, the cultural and social identities that define the place and support its ongoing evolution.
RVLTR: (02:59)
That makes sense. And you already answered my next question, which was, why is that important? I think you've covered that already. So ,as far as what you do professionally, what is the role of graphic design, or maybe you can use the term environmental designer. You can tell me if there's yet a better term for that on public spaces and building?
RVLTR: (03:17)
I still wanna come back a little bit to why is that important? Um, cause you know, I grew up in a small village in a small village. You don't need placemaking. The pace of growth is slow and organic. In a village, the people take part in the political life, in the dealings and doings, festivities and games, work and leisure. They are part of it, but that all changes when the organization becomes bigger. So instead of activities, they are now institutions who handle these activities. Instead of artisanry, there is bureaucracy, new professions like lawyers, officials and ministers, and that alters the whole culture, the whole style of human existence. So in place of concretely, discernible comes systematic abstraction. The particular is replaced by the universal and self-administration is replaced by decree and intuition and experience are replaced by science or pseudo-science, think of Jane Jacobs, "beware of the expert". Decisions, once taken by individuals are now in the hands of management and super imposed central bodies, for example, city planners. So I just wanna bring this into perspective because placemaking is really from the bottom up, not top down, it's not decreed from an institution, it's really working with the people on the ground to find the right solutions because they know better what is necessary, where they live. But now to actual question, I'm sorry for, bringing that up, because I it's important.
RVLTR: (05:14)
No, it's totally fine.
RVLTR: (05:18)
So, when we think of graphic design and our role, you normally think of doing layouts for the printed materials, maybe web design or UX design, you know, like the interface on your cell phone. But when you see it more holistically, you can say that designers are communicators, advertisers if you like. And what you do and what you communicate is now a totally open field. It can be anything and it can be anywhere. And that includes the environment. How do you communicate where things are in a city to strangers, for example, through signage that people typically only notice when it's missing or when it's wrong, but it's important.
RVLTR: (06:07)
You have a great point is that we only notice things aren't working when they're missing, like say you don't have the proper signage, because it's always the bad experiences that we notice when you're experiences are seamless. Most of the time we don't notice unless we force ourself to consciously think about it. So that's a very interesting point too.
RVLTR: (06:24)
Yeah. And it also has to do with public safety, you know, and with comfort and seeing and being seen. So how do you organize these places, that fulfill all these needs, for locals has to do with, how can I make my neighborhood a place that feels like home and that has meaning to me and the meaning aspect became really important with the pandemic and, and the climate emergency, but especially with the pandemic. Cause suddenly the question of meaning was in question because everything has changed.
RVLTR: (07:05)
And so what do you mean when you use the word meeting in relation to cities and design, how would you define that?
RVLTR: (07:13)
It's a very complex situation. The scientism. Our, current scientific worldview has, besides a lot of marvellous interventions or inventions, also brought a lot of suffering to this world and the way we build cities is based on modern, the modernist use, which is a rational, scientific approach to problems of population, equality, traffic, et cetera, et cetera. However, a scientific ontology, does not have the right answers to the question of meaning and purpose, especially in a pluralistic society like ours, where there is not one culture, but many cultural identities. So, what is the highest goods, the ultimate goal we can base our decision making on, which is related to values and truths and, and meaning in life. And this has fundamental correlation to our cognitive agencies, to our seeing and how we relate to these problems, and can categorize them and how I do connect to the city and the neighbourhood. And this is not a cold calculation. It's not all the scientific, it's a very fluid, a very dynamical process of focal is getting into focus and getting out of focus, drifting away again and coming back, paying attention. And so it gives you a salient landscape, that makes you feel that you are here and now and deeply connected. So that traditionally, that connectedness was the realm of religion. The, Latin word of religion means bind together, tied together, but religion is not playing this role anymore. So we have to find other things, how we can create these relationships to narratives and to our consciousness. So it's a very complex situation in our life. And for us as graphic designers, this is highly interesting as we are trained to see now, now that sounds funny in a way, you know, we all see, but we are trained to see what might not be obvious to the general public, you know, the patterns behind things, the context, and, looking beyond mediated images and the shortened dumb down context of our artificial Twitter and Facebook realities. So seeing means seeing the pattern behind the obvious in a city, analyzing the structures and the human behaviour in order to develop a vision, the unexpected, the moment of surprise that is so necessary in our environments.
RVLTR: (10:10)
Yeah. That makes a lot of sense. And, that brings me back to a couple things you said earlier, once you said, you grew up in a small village and those kinds of places don't need placemaking because the villagers make the place themselves. And you also mentioned the rise of the manager class and everything being kind of bureaucratic. I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but it seems like you're saying that as the world gets more complex and, cities get larger, the ability to create places organically is disappearing. And so how can people claim that back or, try to back those community building places that are so important to humans, I believe because, you know, we're a tribal species and we've evolved to, uh, to be part of a small-ish group of humans that we recognize and associate with as opposed to everybody else that's outside of this kind of tribe, so to speak. And, um, I'm gonna pick an example in particular that I think fits that bill, even though it's very recent it's, Stackt Market. It seems to me that it's one of the, if not the most successful, placemaking project in Toronto in a long time, without really trying to forcibly make it a place people want to engage with, but more by just providing a blank canvas for people to come in and do all sorts of things from retailers to popup stores, to people having events and parties and stuff. And I think that's what makes it successful. Is that something you, you would agree with?
RVLTR: (12:02)
I wholeheartedly agree with that because it, also means that we take these decisions and, and how we create our places in our own hands. And Stackt Market has a little bit, this feel of custom-made, homemade, improvised arrangements. It's not the high-art, it's not conceptual art. It's really very tangible art. In most cases with placemaking and murals, you see pictures that are more realistic, beautiful, colourful, but not abstract. Or think about the fountain at Berczy park with all these realistic dogs and cats around, you know, it's borderline kitsch, you don't need to work too hard with your brain. It feels comfortable, it feels related. And, and that's why it's so successful. And this idea of, taking the, the outcome of your places, again, back in your own hands, reclaiming these conversations and real experiences, that's really the next frontier. And that's why placemaking in the city is so important. I think it's most one of the most important things, right now and through the pandemic, we all became so aware of it.
RVLTR: (13:34)
Yeah. And it seems that both Stackt and Berczy park, which are completely different design solutions to different problems, to be honest, but they both have this sense of playfulness, in different ways, but Berczy park, it's whimsical with those cats and dogs that frankly, if you don't pay close attention, you'd think they're real. And then you look a little closer and you realize they're statues, but it's kind of cool. And I mean, you used to see that in more traditional architecture, they would have those, the Manneken Pis and whatever else, like those crazy fountains with people holding giant, shellfish, and those are kind of whimsical in their own way as well. And I think that's what's lacking cause if I relate that to another, contemporary example, I think the opposite and in my mind, a complete failure is the redevelopment of Nathan Phillips square. Cuz I remember when the competition, uh, was held, I think was 2005, 2006, it was a big deal and it was supposed to be this new public Plaza that's going to bring people together. And the reality is like they didn't end up changing much. They put a garden roof on top of the council chamber. They put a bandstand in the middle and they moved the peace garden off to the side and did a little bit of landscaping around it. But those were pretty minimal interventions. And by and large, the very morphology of the space hasn't changed all that much. And it's a huge plaza that's very sterile, and if you don't put anything in it, say an art fair, you have to bring all kinds of tents and stuff. And at that point it becomes maybe more usable and more friendly, but by and large on its own, it really doesn't do anything. It's actually quite actively hostile to human occupation. Cause when you're in the middle of that plaza, you feel like you're naked and you're being observed by all the buildings around you. And so that would've been a huge opportunity to do something better. And the building, city hall, is a great building. I think it's a mid-century modern icon, but the plaza is not as successful. Maybe a bit more so in winter cuz you have a skating rink, it brings people together and it's a big space you can use when you have big gatherings, but when it's not being actively used, it's a pretty dreadful place to be. When I think about that and the places we've just compared to it's like night and day in my mind.
RVLTR: (16:10)
Yeah. Without going too deep in this topic, one, one of the problems with that plaza is that it's very monochromatic. Like it's just this gray flooring, if you look at Venice, that great plaza with the mozaic and the pattern, you know, that alone makes you much more feel you wanna go there and feels more intimate than just one vast gray area.
RVLTR: (16:43)
Yeah.
RVLTR: (16:44)
I mean, you need these big places for gatherings of course, but then you have to partition it with patterning and, and with a little bit more detail and it changes the whole look of it. It's, a small intervention, but it could help so much.
RVLTR: (16:59)
Yeah. And that's the one thing they didn't do when they did that, revamping of the Plaza. It's not to knock on anyone who participated in that, in that design, but I truly think it was a missed opportunity. Do you have any other examples you want to talk about of places that are meaningful and fruitful and enable humans to thrive?
RVLTR: (17:23)
In our profession we deal a lot with environmental design, mostly regarding signage, but we did other projects like, uh, Weston commons. Weston commons was on Lawrence street and old Weston road, it was basically an abandoned parking garage surrounded by 60's, highrise buildings. And Artscape came in, together as a developer. And they created there an art center and the cultural hub and our role was again, signage and branding of the place. But we also brought colour onto the facade in a large, big scale, like really painted the whole brick facade of that three or four storey building. And just with this fairly small intervention, it changed the whole dynamic. Colour does something to us. We can't really understand, but it opens up, it feels welcoming. It is engaging. It is attractive first of all, and it's different, right? And, through that intervention with colour and patterns, we allow this Weston commons, Artscape hub to become an attraction for the neighbourhood that allows people to have all kinds of cultural activities there. So with colour and these kind of larger interventions, you can change the behaviour of people. It recognizes that place has a value. And it is the power of the place of a public place. That is so important for us and for our sanity and that makes it clear. And for us, it was rewarding, not financially necessarily, but it was rewarding to see how this can influence the community, of immigrants that mostly live there, but also locals who lived there for a long time, have a place where they can come together and again, exchange and have real connections to people which they normally wouldn't meet. But this is a place where they feel safe. It has programming. Programming is a very important part of placemaking and that's how it works. Similarly with Regent park and the Daniels spectrum. The Daniels spectrum was supposed to be the heart and soul of that whole redevelopment. And I think Diamond Schmitt, who created this building, did a very good job in designing the building and the different facilities within there. And we brought in, the colours in an abstracted way, um, because Tim Jones from Artscape at the time said: "I want to have all the flags of the nations who live in region park on this building", but the flags would be such a simple, such a direct way of communicating that. So we, distilled the flags in vertical stripes. It still has the reality of it, but it is not recognizable as flags immediately, but it creates this look that is different than the rest of it. And with that, plus the programming, the programming was extremely important to bring the people in, without that outreach, you can have the shiniest building, it will still not work. So both have to work together, the design as well programming. And that became at the end, really the heart of the redevelopment at region park. And, and I'm very happy that I was part of this development.
RVLTR: (21:38)
Yeah. And it seems like Artscape is particularly adept at creating those not only beautiful engaging places, but also with great programming. Cause I've been to a few of their places that held events that had nothing to do with Artscape, but just happened to happen there. And then all of a sudden you're in this great place at this great event. So I get what you're saying. So how do you create affection for the places, buildings or main streets for the people to engage with those, those places that we're longing for?
RVLTR: (22:10)
Yeah. So there's, there's a whole catalog of things we need to consider or should be looked at. First of all, it's really recognizing the value and the power of public spaces. That's the first thing because in the past architects and planners were more concerned about buildings and streets and that kind of thing. And then if there was some money left, they added a landscape architect to plan some, some ground cover around it. So that has all changed now we recognize the value of public spaces. We recognize the connection to nature again in the city. I was part of the jury for the, reconnect waterfront, these underpasses under the Gardiner at Yonge, York and Simcoe streets. And there were some designs that included nature in the concept and the public opinion about this was that these were the most favorite designs because they included nature. So you see that longing, that being reconnected to nature is a very important part. And I think we get it now. And I think there's a stronger emphasis on including nature, including water back into our living environments. Now it's not so easy in, in our climate. We can't have a "Bosco Vertical" like in Milan, but there are possibilities and technology now makes it possible to bring water up in the tower.
RVLTR: (23:54)
Yeah. And biophilic design has been all the rage for the last few years. So we're starting to see that. I don't know if that's true. It seems to be that even dry plants or anything that looks like a plant even fake plants apparently affect us positively, in spite of the fact that they don't really do anything other than look great. I think there's something to that for sure that we're probably gonna see a lot more of. If you, if you were to summarize what is necessary for better designed, well-functioning public spaces, what would it be like if you had a few rules that every environmental designer or architect should follow?
RVLTR: (24:44)
I think one thing is that services around the neighbourhood should have a distance of 15 minutes maximum to walk to. So keeping these services around neighbourhoods so that they are reachable and don't have to use a car to get around to them. So short distances is important. Improve signage and communication. That's maybe a little bit self-serving, but it's very important for safety and for clarity and also for the exchange of ideas because we communicate through our means. I also think being smart with technology. Technology has its bad side, but it also has its good sides and using the technology in the right way to connect people, to inform people, to make them aware of certain things is definitely in important. I also think that arts and culture is a central place to placemaking. There's so much that arts can add to a place not only for temporary interventions. I'm a member of the board of our BIA. So we do a lot of temporary interventions to bring people to the waterfront. That's one thing, but you also want to be in a place where there's a mural and you like that mural. And if there's a cafe in front of it, that's your place to hang out. So that's very important and the artists have the possibility also to reveal hidden stories. The genius loci that is in a place, that maybe comes from the history from what was done there, how things were fabricated there, or the nature they bring alive. And that's a very important part. Then our neighbourhoods should be walkable. 20 years ago when I came to Canada and I worked on the Yonge street redevelopment, I sat in a meeting, "please, why don't close down the streets and make these walkable streets?" And I was almost put out of the room because that was such a strange idea at that time. But nowadays people are resenting that. They are making walkable environments at least temporarily and it's successful.
RVLTR: (27:22)
And in Europe you have pedestrian neighbourhoods everywhere, that are great because if you need to access with your car, your truck, you can with special permission, but it's a very safe environment for pedestrians to kind of meander and not worry. Like, is there a car coming behind me? And if there's a car it's up to them to be very careful and go very slow because they know that there's that understanding that pedestrians rule in those areas. And I think they're very, very successful retail, neighbourhoods. So you mentioned the importance of technology and to be mindful of it, what do you think is at stake? If we continue to blindly, I would say, rely on technology to fulfill all our needs.
RVLTR: (28:10)
Well we use technology often without knowing, what it does to us. For example, we use photography, that's your profession. In most cases, without understanding that we see a scene through the "camera's eye", in a "cropped" picture, in a split second, but most people take this for reality, which of course it's not. You can analyze it because it's your job to analyze it, but most people don't do it. We use technologies and we don't know what they do to us like AI and, and mass data collection and the processes that are not, visible to us, but influence us more and more and, from targeted advertisement to, mass manipulation and we have to control that.
RVLTR: (29:10)
Because we were talking about that just before we started the interview, we're at a disadvantage because you have people, say in the news industry who are continuously improving their headlines and articles and pieces of content to, to capture our attention. But there's nothing qualitative about it. It's purely about clicks and the number of views. And because they're constantly putting out stuff and they can A/B test all the time, they've become really good at knowing what kind of headlines will grab our attention. And I think that's why we think that the world is ever more divided when in reality it is not because if you talk to people in real life, nothing has changed. We're still as human as ever, but it's the, that life online on the corporate media, on the social media where everything is hyper-polarized because there's that need to fulfill this duty to shareholders and generate profits, at least for the for-profit media enterprises out there. But what we often fail to recognize is that, the reality is completely different if not the exact opposite. Especially with the pandemic, that's a whole other topic, but we've been stuck at home for two years. So our only connection to the world is through this window much like a photograph is not a real representation of the world. There's a filter through everything. So until we start realizing that we have to take everything we see online with a grain of salt and have a healthy dose of skepticism towards those things. Yeah, everything is gonna feel like it's polarized to death, but I don't think it is in real life because it brought me to the point where I used to be afraid to express my opinions for fear of like, "oh, people are gonna think I'm crazy" because I hold this view or that other one, the reality is like most people are perfectly reasonable and, and the idea that we can still agree to disagree and have a polite conversation in real life is more true than ever. It just seems like it's not the case.
RVLTR: (31:28)
Exactly. And there's so much positivity with technology. We should not underestimate that. I just give you one example with blockchain technology, you can help the, almost 2 billion people who are unbanked who have no access to a bank credit. And now with a cell phone, they can get these micro credits through blockchain technology and that's unbelievable and that will, you know, spin many of them out of poverty. This is amazing. And that was never like that. So there's a lot of positive things that technology brings to us, but also of course, other things, and it's just a question of control and not just taking it for granted.
RVLTR: (32:23)
And I think blockchain is a good example of technology for good. The primary reason is that it's not owned by anyone or at least the original blockchain in the form of Bitcoin, because other cryptocurrencies and blockchains are questionable. They don't seem to be as secure as Bitcoin is because Bitcoin is truly owned by no one, it was created by Satoshi Nakamoto. He disappeared from the face of the earth and gave his gift to the world. And so I think that's what makes it so successful because it's great for the 2 billion of unbanked people, but it's also great for people who live in regimes that are not friendly to certain ideas and can be oppressed, to give them at least the financial freedom. What I'm gonna say might be controversial to some, but it doesn't really matter. When you have things like the truckers protests and the government - and that's just my opinion - frantically trying to seize the funds that have been donated to them when you do that through regular avenues, through banking and donation sites, that's very easy to do. And whether you agree with it or not, I don't think that's the point. The point is that now that the money that's was given to them in the form of Bitcoins is completely unseizable because there's no middleman. And I think that's part of tha, loss of power is what's driving them nuts, but it also empowers regular citizens to be more free and to use a great technology for the greater good, in my opinion. We were supposed to talk a little bit about the Olympics. So let's do that for a few minutes. You were involved in an unsuccessful bid for the 92 winter Olympics in Germany, which was won by Albertville near my hometown. So I apologize in advance (laughs). I had nothing to do with it. I was too young at the time, but what was that experience like for you, especially as it relates to placemaking and how to, to use something like that to make better environments.
RVLTR: (34:42)
You had Jean-Claude Killy a front man and he was a star at the time, so it was hard to compete against him. Yeah. But we tried. And Albertville held great Olympic Games at the time.
RVLTR: (35:01)
Yeah. Except for the mascot.
RVLTR: (35:03)
(Laughs) so yeah, so through my involvement with the logo design and then following through with all the brochures and, doing this place and, and traveling to different places like Seoul for an IOC conference, I have a little bit more intimate insight in the workings of Olympia. It's a remarkable, sometimes strange place. It's surreal how it all works, especially if you are part of the delegations and all the president's receptions and ambassador receptions and presidents left and right. It's a surreal place let's say. In regards to placemaking, so it's a temporary event, it's placemaking for two, three weeks and it's highly mediated. So that, that you need to know it's a mediated placemaking event. And if everything goes right, it provides meaning as national pride, at least for that short time. So national pride, a nation coming together in a feverish moment, as we all have experienced in the final hockey game between the US and Canada in the Vancouver Olympics. You know, I wasn't even Canadian at the time, but I never felt so Canadian at that moment. And that is what Olympia can do and the whole design around it. So the games as a showcase of what a nation has to offer for the gaze of the world, the mediated games are the foreground, the mirror for often large scales, subsidized infrastructure that would otherwise not be possible, but in general positive sentiment towards the games makes it possible. And the design of the games with the shine futuristic buildings and the latest media technology of slow-motion, pictures, and cameras that let you see the athletes from your couch as if you are running or skiing, right besides them. That is a special fascination that comes with it and with all the positivity that I have for the Olympic games, and I was a sport fanatic myself. It is still a simulacrum as Baudrillard would say, a temporary illusion, a dream of a heroic ideal that has long been replaced by cool business and marketing interests. So it has these two sides. There's still the fascination and this dream of this honesty that sports should incorporate. And of course, there's all these dealings that are going on behind the scenes. And soon, these events will be completely replaced by online games and game shows that already fill today's stadiums as big as the Bird's Nest in Beijing.
RVLTR: (38:21)
Are you talking about eSports?
RVLTR: (38:23)
eSports. Exactly. And one of these mega event places of virtual nonstop killing is planned at the exhibition place and will happen in near future. So I think that's where things will unfortunately go.
RVLTR: (38:39)
So a stronger push towards the virtual. When you say nonstop killing, you're referring to games to video games?
U.S.: (38:46)
Yeah. Because these games that they play at these eSports mega hackathons, it's all about guys chasing the other and shooting them.
RVLTR: (38:57)
Yeah. And then it would be interesting to know what these do to our brains too, when you play them 24/7. You don't know this about me, but I didn't work on an official Olympic bid, but my master's thesis, started as an Olympic village for the Chicago bid in 2008.
U.S.: (39:20)
Wow.
RVLTR: (39:20)
The Chicago bid that never happened, or no, sorry that wasn't selected. They didn't get the Olympics, it was for 2016. So they lost to Rio if my memory serves me well. I did a lot of research on how Olympic games work and Olympic villages are insanely complicated. There's a book this thick of rules and regulations and it's crazy. In my research, I also was able to compile a sort of ranking of the most successful to the least successful Olympics. Not only in terms of their cost, although that was a big part of it, because Olympics are known to be huge money pits, but also in terms of placemaking, are there particular Olympics that stand out to you that were very successful in creating places?
U.S.: (40:15)
The paradox is that the Olympics where the Olympic ideal lost its innocence, due to the terrorist attack in Munich was also - and the Olympics never were the same afterwards - it was always also one of the best placemaking, events or Olympic events at the time. They really included the whole landscaping and the gardens around the Olympic stadiums into one big happening. It was an unbelievable event so it really did a lot and it's still used, so that's the other point it's still used today and it's still used as park and for different events.
RVLTR: (41:14)
Yeah. From memory, it seems like that's one of the rare Olympics where they didn't build white elephants that sat empty for decades afterwards, which was the case for pretty much all subsequent Olympics, Montreal, huge issue, Atlanta, I'm not sure so much, Sydney, there's lots of major issues. LA is the only, ironically is the only Olympics, I think, that ever turned a profits.
U.S.: (41:43)
And really a good profit and a really clever idea of using the scaffoldings and hanging in posters and just colours and shapes. It's lightweight. It could easily be taken down afterwards, but it created this atmosphere and the impression they did a phenomenal job and it was relatively easy to do.
RVLTR: (42:14)
So it's a surprise that no one tried to replicate that because they did great placemaking during the Olympics, because you had all those unifying design elements that you just talked about and they reused as many venues that already existed and built a few, but it was the cheapest Olympics to ever be held and then nobody ever followed that example and everybody's going after building those billion-dollar stadiums. So it's baffling to me that nobody's trying to do that again.
U.S.: (42:43)
Yeah. And Mexico is also a good example in 68. Mexico didn't have the funds, they didn't have the money to build all these big stadium. So they became inventive. So they were really inventive in creating cultural events and environments that didn't cost much and a great design, you know? They really were so inventive due to the lack of possibilities, or a lack of money to create wonderful games at the time.
RVLTR: (43:20)
Do you have any final thoughts as far as place good placemaking is concerned and maybe some ideas you want to share with the audience?
U.S.: (43:28)
Well, I would say that we are at a critical point in time right now with the pandemic and we cannot keep up with the pace of technology, which is exponential and with the speed, that technology also creates, so every new technology changes our behavior, you know, the remote control, not only changed that you could switch a channel change, the whole setup of TV watching and, and the channels in general. It's always changing our behavior. And so we have to always watch, is technology good for the human development and to what extent? And we see now in our cities and new loneliness, and that's on a world scale as a direct result of our values and focus on money on individual individuality like me, myself, I, it's already one of the biggest problems in our society leading to depression, violence, substance abuse, mental health, and what we see right now, especially with young people. So it needs a substantial shift in our value system. And placemaking is probably one of the most important tasks in our cities to create authenticity and meaning for the people to reconnect with one another, rather than being alone together. And the artist Edward Hopper, you probably know the painting Night Hawks.
RVLTR: (45:08)
Yeah. It's my favorite painting
U.S.: (45:10)
Exactly. Already in the fifties when he painted that, you know, he already saw what was coming. So let's not this become a reality for us, and try to get real connections and real conversations change of these places, public places from the bottom up, including the people who live there. That's my hope that we can do that.
RVLTR: (45:39)
And I think that's a very great and positive message to end on. I really liked this conversation. I think it was very interesting. Thank you very much Udo for being the first repeat guest, and hopefully we can have you again in the near future to talk about the next interesting thing.
U.S.: (45:58)
Thank you so much, Arnaud.