Kyle Brill is an interdisciplinary designer and systems thinker born and raised in Toronto. He studied architecture at the University of Waterloo, graduating with his masters in 2016 with honours. Kyle began his career working at architecture and product design firms in Toronto, London, and New York City and became passionate about housing issues and urban development. He has a keen interest in understanding the social, economic and political dimensions of how we build, and thinks architects and designers should take a much more active role in developing our cities, which is what we're going to talk about today. Outside of his professional life Kyle is an avid home cook, photographer, and writer, with a mild obsession with history and science fiction.
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: ©2024 Produced by Révélateur Studio & edited by Chris Rodd
Transcript below edited for clarity and brevity:
RVLTR:
Again, thank you for being on the show. I'm really looking forward to this conversation.
Kyle Brill:
Yeah, thank you Arnaud. Thanks so much for having me on. It's a pleasure.
RVLTR:
Can you tell us what you do in your own words, in three sentences or less?
Kyle Brill:
Yeah. You already gave a pretty great introduction there, but I'm Kyle Brill. I'm first and foremost a designer, architectural and urban. And I also work as a real estate entrepreneur, really focusing for the past few years on developing strategies to rethink how we build in our neighborhood context in the GTA, and thinking of new strategies for low-rise intensification.
RVLTR:
That's great. Let's start at the beginning. How did you find yourself working as a housing developer?
Kyle Brill:
Well, I was really just generally fed up with watching all these issues unroll from the sidelines. People have been talking about housing issues in Toronto and the GTA for a long time now, as you mentioned in the intro. And I wanted to really understand what really was behind creating this inadequate or challenging housing landscape that we're all facing. And I thought a great way to do that would just be to dive in. And I combined forces with two great colleagues of mine and we did just that.
RVLTR:
And so what would be your views on housing and developments?
Kyle Brill:
Just generally or ...
RVLTR:
Yeah.
Kyle Brill:
Amazing. Well, yeah, I think we're really facing a nexus of a lot of different problems right now. And there's really no one silver bullet to solve all of the problems that we're facing. I think there's a lot of layered issues and predominantly a lot has to do with I think, negligent planning on the side of the city, and some pretty complex and ineffective policy that have led us to this position. And we just need more housing, more variety of housing, not so much one type over the other. Everything has to come together holistically for us to have a more sustainable future.
RVLTR:
Yeah. I think that's a great point. And as a quick aside, I was reading an article in Azure, it was an interview of Peter Kluze, the principal at Architects Alliance. He's been probably the foremost condo builder in Toronto for the last couple of decades. And he had some really good points about why housing was so challenged in Toronto and possible solutions to it. And the two that stood out to me were that one, the zoning and planning policies are completely out of date. They date back from an era where Toronto was basically a ... I don't mean this in a derogatory way, but a backwater town not anyone's radar, not the major metropolis it is today, where he was using as an example that it was a town where the bars closed at six on weekends, which is far from what it is today.
And also another solution that stood out to me is that instead of trying to build affordable housing, because let's face it, governments are not really good at doing anything, they're more inefficient than the private sector by and large. Instead of trying to build affordable housing, they would be better off giving financial subsidies to people who can't afford market housing, because you would have to put that money out anyway. But if you just give that money out to people who need it instead of trying to build stuff and manage it, it's a lot less complicated and there may be efficiencies there. I thought those were interesting points, but I digress a bit. Before my next question, is there anything you want to add to that?
Kyle Brill:
Yeah. I think Peter Kluze's comments are interesting. I think Toronto in a lot of ways, at least I like to think of it as being a city that's going through its adolescence or coming out of its adolescence, coming into its own, it's dealing with a lot of growing pains and we're trying to figure out the best way forward. And I think a lot of the planning and zoning issues that we really see come from the history of Toronto being an amalgamation of many different individual municipalities. And the way we consider zoning and planning is so site by site and so individually oriented to each individual case that it creates a ton of inefficiencies and just it's a bureaucratic nightmare to get anything done, which is why the government is so glacial with making any changes it would seem. There's just unneeded complexity there. And I think we're coming through a very difficult period trying to understand who we are as a city and where we want to go and how we want to live and build up. It's a very interesting time.
RVLTR:
In preparing for this interview, you mentioned circular design. Can you tell us what it is and why it's important for addressing a housing shortage?
Kyle Brill:
Yeah, for sure. Circular design just in general is really a methodology or approach to providing products or services that are suited to a circular economy. What I mean by a circular economy is one that's composed of modes of production that are really built around reuse, repurposing resources and regenerating value over time, and to not have such a linear or extractive mode of production. And so when you apply that to housing, that really starts to speak to housing that creates new forms of value over time, whether that is a use, reuse, things that last longer, things that are not just single use or transitional ... There's a very common concept known as the housing ladder. You start in an apartment, then you move into a condo, then you move into your first family home, et cetera, et cetera.
And that would be an example of a linear housing model where you start at one point and there's an end goal and you're moving to different types of housing throughout the whole process, but in reality, what we're trying to do at proof and a lot of our thinking is around bending that ladder, creating a circle, making housing that can operate and change over time to suit our changing needs and means as your life changes, effectively. I think that's a very different approach to the way people think about intensification, think about development. We think about meeting a certain number of units per year but we don't think about how those buildings necessarily will work in alternate densities or 10 years, 20, 30, 50 years from now. And that's just the general gist of that thinking.
RVLTR:
And there's a great precedent for that. And it's just one example but one that to this day stood out to me, although it's not in Canada unfortunately, it's the several housing projects by [inaudible 00:04:17] in Chile where they built half a house for the ... I think it was social housing if I'm not mistaken.
Kyle Brill:
It was disaster relief as well. There was a component ...
RVLTR:
Yeah. They built half a house, with the other half basically only having walls and a roof. And then that gave occupants the ability over time to expand their housing as they saw fit, both from a budget perspective and from a need piece perspective. And I like this idea because it also takes ... Although here we like to think that everything has to be built by builders and professionals, and you could very realistically build a shell that's structurally sound maybe with all the roughings for the services, and then let people finish the floors and the walls and put in their own kitchen if they're handy enough. Anyway, that's a bit of a digression, but I thought that was an interesting segue to your idea of housing that evolves with people. And maybe there's other models I'm not thinking of.
Kyle Brill:
Yeah, there's a few.
RVLTR:
Or modular housing that's pre-designed to accept future models that can just plug in as needed. I think there's ways to deal with that, but unfortunately we don't see any of it here. And a point that comes up in many conversations I've had about housing too, a limiting factor is the way things are funded. And I think new housing typologies almost require new ways of funding it, new financial models, because the ones we currently have are not conducive to allow people to innovate. What do you think of that?
Kyle Brill:
I think that's a really astute point. I think the current way in which we finance housing, both from a development perspective and from an ownership perspective, are tuned to particular ways of building and particular types of housing. The mortgages that we have for personal homes these days, those are a relatively modern invention that I want to say has its roots in the 1950s in government backed personal mortgages. Those were financial instruments and products that were designed to facilitate the ownership of a particular house. If the house works differently or if we want to build something differently, it's not necessarily going to evenly fit in the box of the mortgage products that we have and the debt products that we have today. That's why I say it's not a silver bullet solution, and it's not necessarily a building design or construction related solution to deal with all these housing challenges, it's every layer of the system, from financing to construction, to policy. I would tend to agree, I think we need to innovate across the board.
RVLTR:
In that context, what do you think are the most promising innovations or models that you've seen or played with or maybe you've seen elsewhere in other countries that we should try to emulate?
Kyle Brill:
Financial innovations or just general innovations?
RVLTR:
In general, financial or the way we build or anything else you can think of.
Kyle Brill:
Amazing. And I've been very inspired by this notion of co-ownership or fractional ownership, and I think that approach, we're seeing some uptick in it in North America. It's certainly more common elsewhere.
RVLTR:
Can you describe what it is?
Kyle Brill:
Basically co-ownership is the idea that you don't have to own an asset by yourself, a housing asset by yourself, you can enter a mortgage effectively with partners. It's like having roommates but instead of paying rent, you're all paying into the same mortgage. And it helps reduce the financial load that a first time home buyer let's say, would have in putting down a down payment and making payments. And instead of having tenants in their house as an example, to help them with their mortgage, they would have co-owners in their house that they would live with. That poses challenges from the actual building design perspective because not all houses are designed very well to be shared amongst multiple owners. That's something that I think is interesting from a financial perspective. It also ties into new trends around fractionalization of assets in the crypto space, for example. People are talking about that, tying digital currencies to real estate, but that's a bit above my pay grade.
Other innovations really from a building design perspective, there's a lot of work in the Netherlands that's happening right now, specifically around this idea of adaptability around housing that can change. There's a whole movement out there called the open buildings collective, with a bunch of architects and building and housing developers, which they're basically investing in housing as an infrastructure, something that could last the test of time. And the interiors of those buildings are designed to shift and change as tenancies and tenures would change. And it's really a structural innovation, structural system innovation in the way we consider building utilities. And if you can actually produce an open free plan and give the owners the agency to change the space as they need to, it unlocks some really interesting solutions. Those are two innovations that really come to mind. But you're also seeing a lot of people get involved in co-ownership from a ... Let's call it more corporate perspective. You have co-investors who they'll buy the asset and then you pay them to gain equity over time. That's another version of that.
RVLTR:
Would that be the Our Borough model?
Kyle Brill:
Yes. Our Borough is really more to do from my understanding with down payment assistance. They would own a certain percentage of the home and you would effectively make your mortgage payments but they help you get into it at the onset. There's other models, there's a company for example, called Key Living, where I believe that they own the asset outright and then you rent it from them over time and access equity in it over time, and they're your co-owner partner in that relationship. There's a lot of interesting models coming out and it's all in response to how unaffordable everything is. And so there really is a lot of market innovation happening.
RVLTR:
Those are innovations to alleviate the insane cost of housing, but I think we need to talk about what needs to be done to reduce the cost of housing by ... Reduce maybe not but at least preventing it from getting any higher at supply. I'd like you to point fingers a little bit because I think ... The reason I'm asking you to do that is because I think knowing where the problem comes from and holding the people responsible, accountable is probably the first step in the right direction. Who in your mind is responsible for the insane cost of housing? And I know it's a very complex problem, so there may be more than one answer but I'll let you answer that as you see fit. But I think it's important to talk about as well.
Kyle Brill:
For sure. Yeah, it's really hard to point fingers at one person. And obviously there's more than one group, but I think there's obviously bad actors in every component of the housing problem. But I think if I were to point finger very broadly, it really comes down to policymakers, and the amount of control that I think local politicians have over what housing gets built and where. I'm not saying that there should be no regulation around what we build, but there seems to be from my general observation, a large degree of decision making that's happening amongst groups of people that are not necessarily professionally equipped to make those decisions. And I think they might have very well intentioned political and policy motivations, but they're having counterintuitive effects ... Or not even counterintuitive effects, they're having negative effects, just generally negative effects on producing the housing that we need. Basically, the policy we have is so complex and so layered and requires so much analysis for even something so small to be approved that you end up creating a process where the market will move, will create certain kinds of housing that is more financially feasible than others.
What I mean by that is it shouldn't be as complex to build a seven-story building as it is to build a thirty-story building, but the whole process is effectively the same. And many other people in the industry would say the same thing as am right now, the policy landscape, it's too complicated, it's glacial in how fast it moves, and we can be doing so much better. It also extends beyond the local politics. From a federal perspective even, investing in training the trades, investing in construction innovations publicly. We have a supply issue largely to do with land constraints and zoning but a lot of that has to do also with hard costs going up. There isn't enough people to build the housing that we need. And so there needs to be a lot of investment. I'd say that's probably a federal investment in training programs for new building trades and for modernizing the construction industry to help ease that labor gap.
RVLTR:
That's a very good point. Yeah. And I think the policymakers, the issue is that ... And it's a very broad generalization but I think it's largely true, their incentives are not aligned with the public's incentive. And if we're talking about elected politicians, they're only looking for the next few years until the next election and to get re-elected. And again, not saying all of them are that way but most of them would be. And so I think as long as their incentives are not aligned with the public's incentive, we're going to have the same problem. I don't know how you align those two, that's the real challenge and the real question that needs to be answered. And maybe the solution is to not let those policy decisions in the hand of elected officials. Maybe it's professionals like planners or whatever that actually know what they're talking about. I don't know, I'm just talking out of my ass here. But I think that's the key, is to align the incentives because as long as they'll have self preservation as their primary motive ... They can say whatever they want about caring for their constituency but I look at what people do, not what they say. And you just look at their actions and you see that's not aligned.
Kyle Brill:
Absolutely.
RVLTR:
If you ... Sorry, go ahead.
Kyle Brill:
No, I just had one more thought that popped into my head as you were discussing that. I've talked about this with my colleagues as well. I think in Canada and maybe even in the North American context, we don't even necessarily have a discipline around urban design properly as it's done in other contexts around the world. I'm thinking again about the Netherlands, where it's a professional discipline of urban design. We have planners and they do work in urban design issues but they're really considering risk mitigation over the long term. How do you manage growth over time from a resource allocation perspective, from a tax-based perspective, environmental concerns, etc? But they're not looking at it as a comprehensive design exercise that would necessarily involve many different stakeholders, both public and private, to create a more comprehensive vision that by the way, should be paid for by the government. The government should be funding these kinds of studies to actually comprehensively provide a clear vision forward that everybody can get behind. And I think that is a vehicle, probably a very good one, that could help align everybody's interests, because design is really an exercise in communication. And if you can't communicate your vision effectively, which I don't think anybody in the city at a local constituency level has ever done, then you're not going to solve any problems. You're just going to ...
RVLTR:
Yeah. I don't even think they have a vision, to be honest. Or the vision is ... Yeah, stay elected as long as they can. This might be unpopular but it's true, if you take a city councillor, they make let's say a hundred grand a year, might even be more than that, and so that's a pretty cushy gig. Even though a hundred thousand dollars is not what it used to be, it's still a comfortable wage. It's not to say they don't deserve it, that's not what I'm saying, but if all you got to do is get reelected every four years or whatever it is to keep going, it's a good cushy job that probably has a lot of benefits and pays well. Yeah, you'd be a fool not to try and get reelected and continue living on the taxpayer's dime.
Now, that isn't necessarily a bad thing but we have to take that into account. I lost my train of thought. I forget where I was going with this, but anyway, that's the incentive. They need to be paid for the work they do, and that's totally fair, but maybe it comes with term limits [inaudible 00:12:48] to term, so when you're done, you're done, you can't continue. And so you have less of an incentive to pander to the people that are going to keep you elected and maybe instead do actual things that are beneficial for the city. But if you look at other political bodies like the New Hampshire State Assembly or whatever it's called, they don't pay their members, they get paid a hundred bucks a year.
Kyle Brill:
Purely voluntary.
RVLTR:
Yeah, it's purely voluntary. And so it limits the job to people who have the time and/or the means to do it but it removes the financial incentive from the equation. Maybe you only get retirees or independently wealthy people but they don't do it for the money, they don't do it for ... And again, I'm not saying that's the solution but maybe there's another model.
Kyle Brill:
Absolutely. I think people should very well deserve to dedicate their life to public service and get paid for it if that's what they desire. I just think it's tricky how their powers work and how local governance works in Toronto. And there should be more optimizations of how decisions are made. It really is as simple as that, and not getting so much control into an even hyper-localized context when we're dealing with issues that are so intermingled and complex. You can't just look at it from one borough's perspective in the patchwork of boroughs of a larger city, it doesn't work that way. They're going to run into bureaucratic brain damage that way, which I think we're already experiencing, we have been experiencing. It's a really multi-layered problem for sure.
RVLTR:
And I think maybe the ... Another thing that came to mind is the councillors are elected on a very specific geographical area. Maybe it's councillors at large that we need that are not tied to a particular neighborhood, so that they're less incentivized to respond to people in certain neighborhoods and more to look at the city as a whole.
Kyle Brill:
[inaudible 00:14:10]. I tend to agree.
RVLTR:
If you had a magic wand and you were tasked to solve the housing shortage and the insane costs, what's the one thing that you'd do if you could do only one thing?
Kyle Brill:
Only one thing.
RVLTR:
Yeah.
Kyle Brill:
Just because I only have one choice to make, I would probably eliminate restrictive zoning measures. It's insane to believe that we should protect the typology of housing and prioritize pre-existing character in the face of a changing city. I think that's irresponsible, from a civic perspective and also from an environmental perspective.
RVLTR:
Yeah. And I can't agree more because we have literally thousands and thousands of those Victorian narrow homes with the big window in the front. They're literally the same in the entire city and they're all more or less protected, or a lot of them are from a heritage perspective. But the reality is they're a dime a dozen. They're commodities. Maybe you want to preserve the most significant examples of it because it's important, but to ... Yeah. And that's just one issue. But to want to preserve all of them for the sake of preserving them, I think is foolish because first of all, they're not that pleasant to be in. They're very dark and narrow.
And the city is supposed to evolve. We need to tear down stuff to build bigger and higher and more dense. And I've used that example many times but when I first moved to Toronto, it was almost 18 years ago, 2005, I lived in Chinatown. No, first I lived in Kensington Market and then Chinatown, either side of Spadina. And it was baffling to me. I did not understand at the time that you could have entire neighborhoods of single family detached homes in the downtown core. It just did not make sense. Now I am more used to it because it's been a long time, but it still doesn't make sense. That's the place where you'd want to have density because that's where everything's happening, is where you have the jobs, where you have the entertainment, it's where you have everything.
Kyle Brill:
In the center of a globalizing international city, all power to you. But in some senses, that has to become a more expensive choice, whether it's a ... Because what's the opportunity cost for the city of protecting your right to have access to that house where it is? It should cost you more, whether it's property taxes, which is definitely an unpopular opinion, whether it's property taxes, other forms of taxation, restrictions on how much you could resell it for, I have no clue, but it should definitely cost you something to maintain that lifestyle at the expense of others who can access the vibrancy of the downtown in a densifying internationalizing city. It seems clear to me.
If you were to up zone everything, obviously you can't necessarily do that just as you wish, there needs to be some phasing of that process. But if you're worried about your land value going down because density is going to somehow impede that, that's also just not true. If your neighbor's lot can support an apartment building, it means your lot is more valuable because it has more utility. Somebody would be willing to pay more for your land because they can get more out of it. If all they care about is maximizing the value of their asset, then up zoning is actually in their best interest. Now, that has to be controlled, particularly because if you just let it happen, like I mentioned before, all land just becomes incredibly expensive. And then there's issues even more so than we're seeing now. And then there's issues that would come about as to who has access to it, who can buy, who could develop it. There's a whole other slew of problems that would emerge from a simple up zoning exercise like that, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be thinking that way. Yeah, that was just my 2 cents on what you were saying.
RVLTR:
Yeah. And I think it makes sense because the ... And that's a very north American ... Actually, maybe not but I think it's very North American maybe more so than elsewhere, although real estate assets are usually where people stash their retirement. I think the balance, and I'm going to play the devil's advocate, is that you don't want to make it so that it makes their assets less valuable. But like you pointed out, the common tendency is to think that increased density reduces the value of the land, when all facts point to the exact opposite. When you have higher densities, land value increases. I think to make it fair, because ... Say you've gone into the market 40 or 50 years ago, you bought a house for whatever, 50 grand, and now it's worth two and a half million, even if you account for 50 years of inflation, you're still way ahead of the game, you're doing really well. And I think there should be a way to create incentives that push people to cash out.
And I don't know how you do that, that's something economists and other smart people should think about, and give up that land for more productive uses. Whatever that looks like, maybe it's no capital gains even on second or third properties, or a tax credit if you sell your property in certain conditions or whatever the case may be, because you do want to free up that land and push people who don't necessarily need or want to be downtown, to cash out from their investments and give it up for other people to try and take advantage of the growth the same way they have. The problem we see is that ... And that's the nimbus basically, is that they want to preserve the neighborhood because they think that if they do, again, contrary to all the evidence, their property is going to keep going up. It might but it will go up more if you increase the density. There's also a lack of understanding of how economics affects the whole market, and I think that's probably a conversation for another time, to be honest.
Again, we're talking about incentives. And it also leads me to the next question I had for you about expectations. My favorite Canadian journalists always talk about the Canadian public having the wrong expectations on many topics, not necessarily just housing, but I think that applies imminently to housing because people ... Again, it's a broad generalization but people want to buy a single family home, make that their retirement fund, cash out when their kids are out of the house, and they can downsize to a nice condo and use the rest of the money to live off for the rest of their final years. But are those expectations reasonable for everyone to have a detached home with a backyard, especially in a city as big as Toronto? Because if you really want that, you can go live in Peterborough or King City or somewhere a little further out where there is plenty of room and land is widely available, but to me it doesn't make sense anymore to promote that as the main housing technology in a city this big and this pressure for housing.
Kyle Brill:
I think that absolutely we need to realign our expectations. I think in most areas, not all ... There's some areas in Toronto that could perhaps arguably be protected at their current scale, they have historic value, etc. But I think largely speaking, we do need to reorient our expectations around how we live. I think that's naturally going to happen, and it is already happening as the way we live changes. Housing always evolves and adapts to suit external pressures, whether that's economic, environmental, etc. The Victorian houses that we're trying to protect were mass housing in large part for a working class at some point in time. And it just has to do with how society functions is reflected largely in the housing that we produce. And if society is changing at large, if we're going through all sorts of economic environmental transitions, the way we live and our expectations around how we live in a society also has to change.
Is it an expectation shift around typology? Is it an expectation shift around density? I'd say it's more around density than typology, because you can still live ... For example, there are cities around the world where single-family homeownership is still common next to much more dense forms, think of Tokyo as an example. That's a great example of a city that has ... A large percentage of people in Tokyo live in single-family homes where they own their properties. Do they have backyards? No. There's a much denser population base, and people are also ...
RVLTR:
They're also way more flexible on the uses allowed. And you can have single-family homes with a tiny cafe on the ground floor and you live above it. It's much more flexible in the usage that's allowed and actually more mixed too. It's not you separate housing from everything else, which doesn't make any sense for a vibrant city anyway.
Kyle Brill:
Yeah, absolutely. I think what we're starting to experience too is the conflation of domestic and work environments, more and more people working from home, people running side hustles out of their house, people renting it to other people to use in different ways. It goes against a lot of the modern planning principles that try to neatly put everything into little buckets like, "This is where offices go, this is where houses go, this is where towers go."
And I think that, let's call it regime, that planning regime, is not suited for the complexity of the society that's emerging currently. And I think there's going to be a need for a lot more blending of uses and types to allow for a much more, let's call emergent form of urbanism that is dictated by the way society works, which is something that you see in Tokyo as an example.
RVLTR:
Or many other cities in the world. And you used to see it in Toronto to an extent because you had a lot of those little corner stores that have been grandfathered in. If you're lucky to own one, you can still use it as commercial space, but you try to get it zoned as such today from scratch. Good luck with that.
Kyle Brill:
Impossible. And some of them have been converted to be great restaurants or community amenities of that type. And we love them but we can't build them, it makes absolutely no sense.
RVLTR:
No, it's nuts.
Kyle Brill:
It's contradictory. Yeah, I think we need to reorient our expectations, absolutely. I think people need to realize that density is the problem, especially in a city like Toronto, that you want to be popular and remain popular for many years. And that's an economic center. To think that I can have my little tomato garden in the backyard that never gets overshadowed by a high-rise building for the rest of my life, and my children will have that right, et cetera, et cetera, that means that Toronto has not changed. And again, like I said earlier, that's irresponsible for a variety of reasons.
RVLTR:
Yeah, I'm going to refrain from commenting on that because I have neighbors that some of them are really stupid and I had to deal with them on The Committee of Adjustment matters, and the shit you hear is just crazy. But we've all been through that I'm sure. We've covered a lot of ground. I think it was very interesting conversations, and I think you answered all the questions I had for you. Is there any final thoughts you'd like to share with the audience before we wrap up?
Kyle Brill:
Yeah. I would really encourage people, if you care about housing and you care about the future of the city, to get involved in as many capacities as you can, join a group, join the Urban Land Institute or any other variety of groups, attend a Committee of Adjustment hearing if it's in your area, if you're pro-housing, just go out and speak up. It's important that pro-housing voices are heard and that a different future is possible. Amongst my colleagues, we like to say that the future is not what it used to be. The actual models that we have in our minds don't necessarily apply anymore. They might've seemed like great ideas 10, 20 years ago but it's not the case anymore. And I think a new better future is possible, I'm hopeful for that. And I think it takes people getting involved in standing up for what they want to see to make better reality. I would encourage everybody to do that if you care, and we can build a better future together for sure.
RVLTR:
Yeah. And I've done some of that, particularly going to community adjustments to support neighbors, and it was a very enlightening experience. And I'll just leave it at that. But I encourage people to do the same thing. If we have all become a little more civic minded, then you can make a change at a small scale. But if enough people do that, then it adds up.
Kyle Brill:
Absolutely, I believe in that one hundred percent.
RVLTR:
Well, thank you very much, Kyle. It was a great conversation, and hopefully the first of many.
Kyle Brill:
Yes. Thanks so much, Arnaud. It was great to talk to you today.