How Do Economic Forces Shape Cities? With Paul Knight

Paul Knight is a city planner and architectural designer at Historical Concepts in New York Paul serves as the Director of Research at the Doug Allen Institute, a nonprofit organisation exploring the lessons of history for how we can build better cities Paul is also a Bitcoin enthusiast and has a deep interest in how money and economic forces shape the form of cities

https://dougalleninstitute.org/archives/author/pk/

https://x.com/PKmemex

https://aleph.press

SUPPORT ME https://www.thetransformationofvalue.com/support

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
You know, are like, some are really easy to change, like you
can paint, you know, your room adifferent colour, but then some
are really hard to change, like adding new foundations to your
house really hard. And so, you know, that just
relates so strongly to how I think about Bitcoin in terms of

(00:20):
layers, like, you know, Bitcoin being this foundation layer, you
know, in my mind, you know, I'm thinking about, I'm thinking
about forever. I'm thinking about like, you
know, urban form time scales of thousands of years.
Hello, I am Cody Allingham, and this is the Transformation of
Value, a place for asking questions about freedom, money,

(00:40):
and creativity. My guest today is Paul Knight, a
city planner and architectural designer at Historical Concepts
in New York. Paul serves as the Director of
Research at the Doug Allen Institute, a nonprofit
organization exploring the lessons of history for how we
can build better cities. Paul is also a Bitcoin
enthusiast and has a deep interest in how money and

(01:02):
economic forces shape the form of cities.
Paul, welcome to the show. Thank you for having me.
I had the chance to read an early version of your upcoming
project, the Urban Form Standardyou write.
Cities are not just their buildings, though we often think
of them that way. Nor are cities just its people.

(01:23):
Rome had a population of a million in the 1st century after
Christ, but after the empire collapsed, that number plummeted
to 60,000. The population didn't reach
1,000,000 again until 1950. The buildings changed, the
people changed, the entire civilization changed.
Yet it will still roam. Paul, What persisted?

(01:44):
What is the actual substance of a city that allows it to
maintain its function across time?
Oh my goodness. Well, since this is a hour long
podcast, can I give you the longanswer for it?
So most of my understanding of cities comes from my former

(02:05):
professor at Georgia Tech, Doug Allen.
And he said that you know what, and to answer the question, what
are cities, There are two orders.
There's the constitutional orderand the representational order.
The representational order is all the stuff that you you kind
of think of when you think of a city, The buildings, the people,

(02:28):
cars, traffic, restaurants. But those things come and go.
I mean, like you just said, you know, with Rome over 2000 years,
but the constitutional order is the underlying framework of all
of that. So it's, it's the streets,
boundary lines, public parks, public buildings and monuments.

(02:52):
It's this political and public framework.
Those are the things that last through time.
You know, they, they can persistfor hundreds of years, and in
Rome's case, thousands of years.And, you know, they, because
they're public elements, each subsequent generation adopts

(03:17):
them and, you know, kind of usesthem or maintains them.
And so they have this incrediblestaying power.
And so, you know, when I think of cities, I tend to think of
cities down at that level, you know, they're operating, you
know, through time at that level, all the other stuff, you

(03:40):
know, me and you and this Airstream that I'm in, like, you
know, these things are only going to last for so long.
But cities the the framework of cities will last forever.
Yeah, well, it's interesting, you write.
Unlike private buildings, which often deteriorate between
owners, public streets tend to get better with age.

(04:01):
Right, Right. Yeah.
You know, again, you can, you know, if you think of a, a
street. And when I, when I say street, I
don't mean, you know, the thing you drive on like asphalt.
I mean the legal definition of astreet, the public right of way.
You know it if you look at it ona plat, it's just a really

(04:22):
boring drawing. It's two parallel lines, and
they're, you know, separated by 60 feet, you know, or scaled,
you know, on the drawing. And within that 60 feet, it
could be rutted out Dirt Rd. in Idaho, or it could be, you know,

(04:43):
an urban thoroughfare in New York City.
But it's that same dimension that can grow and adapt over
time. New York didn't start off being
New York City, you know, it was just kind of this, you know,
rolling hills and farmland. Yeah.

(05:05):
Well, it's interesting. I mean, I mean, there is a
difference, I guess, as Doug Allen writes, between the
representative and constitutional order of the
streets. But I mean the the streets
themselves do get better over time because that public good
role, I guess you could say. And so this is an interesting
question, like what what is the relationship here between that

(05:25):
public infrastructure and the idea of a public good?
And in a sense planning as well.Because you mentioned New York,
which very famously had the 1811Commissioners plan for
Manhattan, which you write about, which envisaged a city to
be built over 1000 years. And I sort of laid the grid for
that, even though it was farmland pretty much it at the
time. And over time, that grid allowed

(05:50):
enough flexibility that you could have skyscrapers as well.
And so talking a little bit about that, I guess the idea of
these boundaries and how they can, I guess how we can
conceptualize what they mean in the role of city planning.
Yeah. So these boundary lines, you
know, they, they create the, thestructure that organizes

(06:14):
everything, you know, beyond, you know, it's not just a bunch
of individuals, you know, cominginto a territory and, and doing
everything on an individual basis.
It's, you know, they form a collective body and that body
decides, you know, OK, we're going to roll this grid, you
know, up the island of Manhattan.

(06:36):
And, you know, because it's, it was formed through this public
body, it has this public ownership and that allows it to
persist over time. You know, I, I think in terms of
cities, I think of cities in terms of layers.
So, you know, at the bottom layer, it is these boundary
lines that we're talking about and the, and the streets forming

(07:01):
these private Leon blocks. And then everything else, you
know, is built on top of that, on top of that layer.
And so I tend to think that likeregulation should be weighted on
that bottom layer and then slowly give way to like, you
know, the, the individual. So like collective at the bottom

(07:24):
and individual at the top. Because if I, you know, if I
were going to design a new city today, I would put so much time
and effort in laying out that initial plan.
And then I, I wouldn't care as much about, you know, what color
are the houses or, you know, what style of architecture are

(07:45):
we going to use or, you know, whatever.
You know, just because I'm not thinking in terms of the next 20
years or even 100 years. I'm thinking in terms of the
next 1000 years. And we've kind of gotten away
from that. You know, we've kind of flipped
it where we're all, you know, oh, we got to make sure, you
know, they don't paint their house pink or something.
And we'll write that into a zoning ordinance.

(08:06):
But then, you know, we we won't design A coherent St. network
and we've got just suburban sprawl everywhere.
Yeah, often this is with dwelling on a little bit because
there is this interesting tension and especially when I
guess you look at it, you know, for us as Bitcoiners as well,
looking at it from the side of like private property, the role
of of regulatory bodies and stuff.

(08:26):
I think there can be maybe some gut feelings that somehow
central planning doesn't work here.
But really what you're saying I think makes sense, this tension
where, you know, you need to have a city that centrally the
the grid of it is thoughtful, you know, and the greatest
cities in the world tend to havethat.

(08:47):
Places like New York that you mentioned, places like Kyoto
here in Japan, you know, most, most cities, at least in the new
world have have some degree of planning going on.
And for those that don't, it canbe really hard.
You know, it's really hard to get around.
There can be congestion, all these issues, but when it comes
to the centrally planned cities that there is this idea that

(09:08):
there's an anti humanism there. And I think maybe if we could
talk about that a little bit, because you have places like
Brasilia, Brasilia and Brazil, you've got Canberra and
Australia, these these massive, almost authoritarian kind of
sprawling cities that have that there's kind of centrally
planned kind of top down view. And what is the difference
between that and what we're talking about here with a city,

(09:31):
a street map, effectively? Yeah, no, it it's, I think it's
just an unfortunate, you know, aspect of of top down planning.
Sometimes it works amazingly well, Paris, NY, Chicago, you
know, these great St. frameworks.
But then like you said with Brasilia, you know, sometimes
it's just as a disaster. And so it I, you know, I hate to

(09:55):
say it, but you know, is it the luck of the draw, I guess, you
know, are you going to get a great city planner and, and end
up with a great city or. Well, we can take, we can take
some of the luck out of it though, because you do in the
urban form standard that you're working on you, you do write a
little bit about some of the rules that we can look at here.
So I think maybe talking a little bit about that, I mean,

(10:16):
what is what is important to take in into account when we're
talking about cities, when we'rereflecting on what makes a good
city? Well, it's super simple.
It's there's, you know, 4 littlerules that if you follow these
rules, you'll create a foundation for urbanism that

(10:38):
will last you for thousands of years.
It's not a guarantee that your city is going to be amazing or
beautiful or last 1000 years, but it is a necessary framework
in order to get to that point. So what I've done through this

(10:58):
research project that started under Doug Allen and I've just
continued it to today is, you know, instead of trying to come
up with my own idea of, you know, oh, what do I want a city
to be? Or, you know, what should be the
ideal city? Instead, I just asked the
question, you know, you know, what do you think the ideal city

(11:19):
is and what it's what does the APA think the ideal city is?
And what is voters? And like all these travel
journals or travel guides, you know, what do they say the most
amazing cities are? So I've compiled the long list
of objectively great cities around the world.

(11:41):
And then I just measured them. I looked at their St. networks,
I measured their block sizes, measured their right of way
widths. Do they have alleys or not?
What are their block geometries?And you would think that, you
know, I'm pulling from all over the world, you know, every
continent, every state in the United States.

(12:04):
I intentionally want it to be very broad, you know, in this.
And amazingly, they all coalesceonto this really, really tight
range of dimension that forms this foundation for good
urbanism. So block sizes tend to be

(12:24):
somewhere between 200 feet and 600 feet.
They tend to be more rectangularthan square because rectangulars
geometries just happen to be easier to work with.
I mean, you know, the, the room that you're you're in looks like
a rectangle and all those books behind you are rectangles.

(12:44):
And, you know, my computer screen is a rectangle.
So rectangles are fairly useful forms for us.
And there's this kind of stacking efficiency that, you
know, compounds from scale to scale to scale.
And so it just so happens that great blocks happen to be
rectangular just because that's how, you know, it works for us.

(13:08):
And so it's, it's really just teasing out all these natural
evolutions of things and rules of thumb and just kind of
codifying them into, you know, these four simple rules.
Yeah. And it's, it's really
interesting. I mean, the again, the, the New
York example and how again that they didn't know about

(13:30):
skyscrapers really to the degreethat we have today.
I mean, there were, there were some, you know, larger
structures there, but certainly the grid, these rectangular
grids, 200 to 600 feet in size were able to accommodate and
they were very flexible with that.
And so I sort of, I think about this, you know, it is a case

(13:50):
that all cities are planned to some degree.
Oh, it's just absolutely. It's just a question whether
that plan is consistent and capable of expanding or whether
it's chaotic and constrained. And again, I think of cities
that have more of a laissez faire kind of thing going on.
And you know, the trains don't work or you can't even build
train networks. You can't have these kind of

(14:13):
connective tissues that bring the different neighborhoods
together, whereas at least some sort of blueprint for a city, it
enables that to come through, right?
Well, something that, you know, really surprised me in my
studies of all of this. And I'm, I'm not just looking at
the urban design aspect of things like the dimensions.

(14:34):
I'm also reading zoning ordinances and like boring stuff
like that. But if you, you know, look at an
aerial photograph of like suburban sprawl, you tend to
think, oh, this is totally unplanned.
You know, they, you know, they just kind of did whatever they
wanted. Absolutely not the case.
Suburban sprawl is the most planned urbanism in America.

(15:00):
Every inch of suburban sprawl isin a zoning ordinance, and it
you can't do anything without referencing that document.
Yeah, and, you know, I reflect, you know, where I live here in
Japan, Paul, you know, we've gotconvenience stores, we've got
small shops, small cafes all around.
And and it's really lovely. I don't own a car.

(15:20):
I don't want to own a car. I love walking, I love biking,
and it makes it a very livable human city.
The same can be said about places like New York or
Wellington and New Zealand, different cities I've lived in.
And there's something beautiful about that.
I mean, you can use a car if youwant, you can go out and do
stuff, but having the the base mode as as a very human centric,
human scaled place. And I think just coming back to

(15:43):
our reflections on Brasilia, Canberra, these public apartment
projects, some very famous ones.Pruitt ego, you know, some of
the worker Le caboose. Yeah, it's very, it's not scaled
to the person. And, you know, you've got these
wide boulevards and these massive structures, and I think

(16:03):
that reveals something maybe about the nature of the planner
who sort of sees the person as insignificant.
But absolutely. You know what?
What does it mean to have a citythat's scaled for people, right?
Yeah, yeah, I think it's Robert Moses.
He was the big planner of of NewYork in the 50s, I think he
said. I hate people, but I love the

(16:26):
public. You know, he, he was just
operating up here at the top andjust kind of looking down at
everybody and planning these bigplazas and mega highways that
just cut through neighborhoods, you know, without, without
thinking about what it actually means to be human.
Like within that city, You know,and, and, and I, I found that

(16:51):
with a lot of planners, they actually, you don't really have
a sense of scale. And what I mean by that is you
can look at a, at a map of a place, you know, let's just
stick with New York City on a, and that'll be like on a 24 by
36 inch sheet of paper and you've got the whole city laid

(17:11):
out in front of you. And at that scale, it's
impossible to even see the things that you interact with on
a daily basis. You know, the blocks are like
these tiny, tiny little things. And that's the scale that Robert
Moses was, you know, working at when he was, you know, planning
all this, you know, big highway infrastructure.

(17:34):
The human scale is surprisingly really, really small.
And so as, as a, you know, city planner, architectural designer,
I, you know, really try to understand everything from, you
know, the Super big scale all the way down to the scale of a
doorknob or yeah. Well, there is AI think what is

(18:00):
termed as a terminal unit, sort of the smallest size you get to,
which effectively is going to bea person who's, I don't know, 5
to 6 feet tall basically, you know, that's the scale that we
come down to. And so whether it's a skyscraper
or a house, doors, door handles,you know, seats, these kinds of
things are going to be the same scale, right?

(18:21):
Yeah, exactly. And you mentioned Robert Moses,
who again, it's important that, you know, that if we
distinguish, distinguish this because there was the 1811
commissioners plan for Manhattanand then, you know, come
through, come through time to the 1950s, Nineteen 60s, Robert
Moses in New York after World War 2 was saying, OK, we need to
change things. And that was these highways and

(18:43):
these massive changes to the original plan, which was very
disruptive at the time. It sort of was like amputating
Lums in a way, because he was lying, laying these highways
through New York, in a lot of cases, cutting up communities.
And there's a really good book, I don't know if you've read it,
Vanishing New York, Jeremiah Moss reflecting on how a great

(19:05):
city lost its soul. And this idea of gentrification
from Robert Moses through to I think it was Bloomberg, one of
the mayors in like the early 2000s who sort of really tried
to develop the city beyond, I guess what it was prior to that.
And and it was a lot of sort of tweaking of zoning laws, a lot

(19:26):
of tweaking of sort of what sortof things could be built.
And so you ended up with this monoculture that is maybe
emblematic of New York today. I mean, I'd like to hear what
you think, but you know, a little bit more sterile than it
was in the in the earlier days. Yeah, no, I, I hate to say it,
but, you know, buildings only last for so long as we've, you

(19:48):
know, started this podcast, you know, talking about and, you
know, I'll look at these beautiful skyscrapers built in
the early 1900s. At some point, you know, they're
just not going to be there anymore.
And you can see like slowly. 1960s architecture, 1970s like
these monolithic, bland, typicaldowntown America or even

(20:14):
international, you know, buildings just kind of popping
up everywhere. Yeah.
Well, that that's it though. I mean, I, I think it's kind of
a certain period of time where abuilding does become
untouchable. And I think say New York, you
know, it would be hard to get rid of those heritage listed
buildings, which arguably, you know, is that a good thing or

(20:34):
not? It's it's hard to say.
But certainly there was some beautiful structures.
And the one that strikes me is, is it Penn Station?
Penn Station. There.
I mean, do you maybe talk a little bit about that movement
and how that really started thispreservationist idea perhaps?
Yeah. So Pennsylvania Station was
designed by Mckim Eden White, I think it was in early or late

(20:57):
1800s. And it was this beautiful,
monumental, both arts classical train station.
In New York, yeah. In in New York City and in the I
believe it was torn down in the 60s to make way for, you know,

(21:18):
big do development. And they built a new Penn
Station that, I mean, just looked like total crap.
And I can't remember who said this, but somebody said we used
to enter the city like gods. Now we scurry in like rats.
And I mean, it's just so oppressive, like the old Penn
Station, like low ceilings and it's just really bad.

(21:42):
And, and when everybody saw that, they were like, oh shit,
we, you know, we've got to protect some of our really
amazing buildings that we have here.
And and so, yeah, that prompted this preservation movement, you
know, really to kind of transferthese, you know, very publicly
important buildings into the care of the public so that it

(22:06):
can persist through time. Yeah.
So there's an interesting tension here.
I mean, again, it's not a simplistic black or white, yes
or no, private public. I think, you know, maybe you'd
agree that there is a tension here with something like the
central train station of a city really, you know, beyond who
actually owns it. In some cases it can be private,

(22:27):
but I think it does have this public role, you know, people
pass through it. And so there's also a tension
there with something like the, the fixed street map, the the
master plan, not just being fully, you know, tabular rasa.
You can build anything. You know, there is these key
pockets and these things that emerge.
And it's almost like this is sort of a layer 2 on top of the

(22:50):
the base layer, right, that actually starts to give
character to what would otherwise be just the
constitutional representation, right?
Right, yeah, just kind of this meaningless, you know, grid or
meaningless Excel file. And until you actually start
putting things in there, you know it.
It doesn't mean anything. Well, it's interesting because
I'm reminded of, I don't know. Have you ever been to Tokyo

(23:11):
before, Paul? No, but it it is on my, you
know, top three list of places to travel next.
Yeah, well, I'll show you aroundsometime, but it's interesting
with Tokyo again, there's kind of the old city.
There's kind of some sense of sprawl beyond it, though there,
there was quite a degree of planning involved.
But certainly what happened, unfortunately, during World War

(23:34):
Two, it was mostly burnt to the ground.
And so the entire grid and the structure, these wooden houses
got burnt away. And there was this great rush
after the water rebuild the city.
And in a sense, it's sort of a symptom of Fiat money as well,
which I hope we'll get into in amoment.
But they're very quick. And there was this
disposability. And so the structure, I mean,
it's a very ugly city. I mean, I must say, I mean, it's

(23:56):
got its own sense of beauty and the kind of the way it's been
built up that, you know, there'sstill moments of quietness and
solitude, but it's not it's not a great architectural city
because everything got blown up,blown away.
And that sort of has persisted through time.
And so, you know, it is a grey concrete jungle, whereas

(24:19):
somewhere like Kyoto or where I live in Kamakuda.
So it was never was was bombed to the same degree.
And so it has just this little bit more texture.
And, you know, the great cities,the world have these kind of
architectural epochs that kind of populate it.
It's kind of like having a family with, you know, you know,
grandparents, parents, you know,grandchildren, all of these

(24:41):
generations in one place, right?I mean, you know, you mentioned
Fiat money, so, you know, we could go into that a little bit
because, you know, yeah, like since the 60s really, or post
World War 2. I mean, similar in New York
City, you know, all the buildings are starting to look
like crap. And even in my only 20 years of

(25:04):
experience in the construction industry, I've actually seen a
decline in quality of construction just even in, in
within that time. And I mean, you and you know,
all of your listeners, you know,know about the ravages of
inflation and you know that thatmakes itself, you know, known in

(25:26):
the decrease in quality of construction.
You know, just thinking about, you know, pre World War 2,
architecture was, you know, built more slowly, built more
fine grained, not just architecture, but also also
urbanism. And then post World War 2, you

(25:48):
know, you, you get this like jumping scale where everything
just gets, you know, like overblown, like you start
working on these big projects, big maps, big buildings.
And it's this, you know, economyof scale.
It's like, oh, well, I can't afford to do the small, you
know, little mom and pop shop now.

(26:11):
Now I've got to be, you know, a family office that has a ton of
money and buys up a lot of property.
And the numbers only pencil out if I get, you know, X number of
units and, you know, suddenly you've just got this monolithic
thing and, you know, oh, I don'twant to pay for, you know,
these, the beautiful window surrounds that you would see on,

(26:34):
you know, a lot of these buildings in the early 1900s.
You know, I've got to, I've got to make more money than that.
So we're just not going to do any window surrounds?
Yeah. Well, I wonder, I think at a
simplistic level, there is an argument that there is a the
kind of direct relationship between the nature of money and
urban form and, you know, this kind of mythical idea perhaps of

(26:57):
the golden age. And I think that's maybe a
little bit problematic in when you look at it, you know, real
close. I think there's a lot more
wrapped into it. I think there's ideological
change. I think there's, I mean,
certainly the, the pre war, postwar split, as far as I, my
studies reveal is this kind of internationalism that emerged
after the war, which was trying to go towards a kind of a clean,

(27:22):
more commutative future. And the, the example for me is
like the typeface Helvetica, which people might be familiar
with, you know, this emerged as this kind of new
internationalism out of Switzerland.
I think this new typeface sans serif, very clean, easy to read.
And you compare that was sort ofthe way they were doing writing

(27:42):
before, you know, these kind of very complex serif characters.
For me, that's an example that has also transmuted over into
architecture. And so the kind of classic
1950s, nineteen 60s glass tower in a sense, at the time, it was
a utopianism, It was a future focus, right?
And maybe you could talk a little bit about that, sort of

(28:02):
how you see that maybe ideological difference between
the old and the new? Yeah.
So, you know, when when I went through architecture history
class, you know, they, they would say, you know, oh, you
know, why do we have all these different architectures, all
these different styles? Well, you know, there's
different climates, you know, around the world, you know, hot

(28:26):
weather, cold weather that you're going to need a different
kind of building that's going to, you know, translate into a
different kind of architecture. You know, what materials are
available, What's the technology, You know, that's
that's been a big one, you know,of this previous hundred years
is post industrial revolution. I mean, technology has

(28:48):
dramatically changed things. I mean, even AC units has
changed how architecture looks and also, you know, like where
you can build. And so, you know, we, we learned
about, you know, all these different things that affect how
how we build our homes and cities, but we never learned

(29:13):
about the monetary system. You know, we never learned about
inflation or the gold standard or any of that.
So, so I'm, I'm with you in my research, I haven't seen some
like clean, you know, these likeclean variables that relate to
money. And then, you know, because of

(29:34):
this, therefore it translates into architecture and urbanism
this way. But I do think, you know, it's
just one, one of the other, likemany factors that, you know,
considered all together. It it it does shape and affect
the built environment. Well, I think maybe also at a
higher level the, the, the economic order and, and coming

(29:58):
back to New York, I think it wasBloomberg, Mike Bloomberg,
sorry, Mike Bloomberg, the businessman, former mayor of New
York City. So he, he really had this idea
of like, you know, let's bring more Wall Street, let's
internationalize, let's globalize New York.
And this, I guess, was like the early 2000s and it really

(30:21):
changed the face of the city. It became a city of big money.
And I think that this is maybe what we're getting at, you know,
this this idea of like BlackRockor these, these, you know,
massive hedge funds, you know, they kind of own everything.
They're buying everything up. And and that to me is a symptom
of, you know, the cancel on effect this late stage project
we're in where, you know, effectively it's all been

(30:43):
gobbled up by these larger entities.
And that I think more than anything has an impact.
So it's not necessarily like thearchitects are somehow, you
know, you know, being changed inwhat they.
Want to do? They've been constrained, right?
Exactly. Yeah, I mean, you know,
typically architects don't have a ton of money.
So, you know, we're not the oneslike funding these projects.

(31:06):
We have clients and and they're the ones that write the checks.
So you know if the client wants a big boxy building then you
know the architect is kind of make them.
That what's like what makes the box though, and I mean, again, I
I'm in this, you know, I walk going to Tokyo once a week and
the original Tokyo station, it'sa beautiful brick building.

(31:27):
You know, it's survived World War 2.
I think it's one of the greatestpieces of architecture in the
city. And that as contrasted with the,
you know, that's the financial district.
There's all of these glass towers that look exactly the
same. And you've got these two epochs
face to face. And I wonder, you know, what is

(31:49):
it about the nature of the, the economic order, the desire to
sort of put this money and deploy it in the most efficient
way? There's this kind of, I don't
know, you know, because like ornate Bozart and and and and
and sculptures and and that sortof thing, you know, they're not
an economic use of money. They're a very decorative thing.
And like, how did we get to thatplace where we don't consider

(32:11):
that, you know? I ask myself that question all
the time. I mean, I'm walking around and
I'll see, you know, some little apartment building, but it's got
the most beautiful entry, you know, door surround.
And I'm just thinking, how did the developer at that time say

(32:32):
to themselves, you know what, I'm going to spend all this
extra money to make this beautiful door surround for this
little apartment building, you know, and now.
Yeah, with the with these large buildings, so we call it
spreadsheet architecture. So, you know, with these
developers, they have their workdown to a science.

(32:56):
I mean, they've got these Excel sheets, you know, these
performers and they itemize everything.
And, and really that largely drives the form of these
buildings. Like they're not, there's not
an, A line item in there for door and window, Sir.

(33:19):
You know, exterior stone surrounds, you know, it's just
not in there. And so, you know, when, when the
developer hands that spreadsheetover to, you know, the
architect, then, you know, the architect is just going to use
these systems. Oh, and that's, that's another
thing actually is we don't buildbuildings anymore.

(33:42):
We install them. So, you know, back in the day
you would have like actual builders on site like making the
pieces and putting the pieces and connecting the pieces
together to, to make the building.
And even like windows would be made like on site.

(34:02):
Nowadays, all of that has been largely driven away.
You know, you order your windowsfrom a manufacturer, You'll
order trim from a manufacturer. You'll, you know, everything is
a component that is brought on to site and you just kind of
stick it up and nail it in and boom, you're done.

(34:25):
Yeah. And so it's the same with these
skyscrapers, too. Yeah, Well, it's interesting.
There's this idea I was introduced to recently, value
engineering, I don't know, come across that.
And it's funny as a euphemism, but it's about what?
It's not really euphemism. I mean, it's used very seriously
as this idea of like, well, how can we minimize costs?

(34:46):
Value engineering. And just hearing someone say
that with a straight face is like what you're just trying to
cut, literally trying to cut corners.
Exactly. Yeah, It's, I mean, that's the
world we live in. And and like, what, what does
that mean? I, I think this is maybe getting
on to the next question was really looking at the critique
of I guess what we call modernity.

(35:08):
Because this, this kind of, you know, beyond the materiality of,
of the structure, the economic order, the, the nature of money
is, is, is going to affect, I guess, the dominant ideological
framework that we're working within and where we're at today.
This kind of modernity, this even neoliberal project that

(35:30):
we're in right now. It doesn't maybe appreciate the
finer things, if I can put it that way.
And I guess I mean, what, how doyou look at things?
Because I know certainly your work with historical concepts is
looking back at this and the older way of doing things.
But like, where are you at with understanding modernity and what
that is? Yeah.

(35:51):
Well, just thinking in terms of my professional career, you
know, as an architect in order to pursue those finer things.
And and so when I think of finerthings, I I think of like the
actual like love and care into the details in the construction.
Unfortunately, it just cost a hell of a lot of money to do
that. And I mean, I'm fortunate to

(36:14):
work at a firm where we have a lot of clients that have a lot
of money. And so, you know, we can
entertain those ideas and, you know, really, you know, take
these historical concepts and actually apply them and dig into
those details. And, but from a personal

(36:36):
perspective, I've been, you know, thinking about wanting to
build a house and, you know, I'mnot my clients.
I don't have all this, all this money.
And so I'm thinking, you know, how do I build this in a way
that is, you know, respectful ofmy, you know, skills as, as an

(36:56):
architectural designer and, and the history and, and everything,
but is also affordable. But then it's also, you know,
capable of, you know, it's not just a cheap house, you know,
you know, not just like going out and buying the cheapest
materials and then hope that thehouse lasts for 50 years.

(37:16):
You know, how can you do that Terribly?
And it's hard. I've been reaching out to
builders and they're just like, not interested.
So it's either either they only want to, you know, work on the,
you know, really big expensive stuff with bigger budgets or,
you know, they're just not interested in that affordable

(37:37):
word and, you know, for custom designed and and so therefore
just kind of gets relegated to prefab, you know, buildings or
mobile homes or something that. Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, they just want to install a house, right?
They just. Yeah.
Well, I mean, I don't know, again, I guess I do want to come

(37:58):
back though to this idea that I think there is a simplistic
critique that modernity is, is ugly, that it's wrong, that
it's, it's not good. And I think we can be more
nuanced and sophisticated than that.
And we can look at where this came from.
You know, there was obviously a,a major turning point in the
20th century, which was World War 2.
And that, you know, I think we can look at that as really where

(38:20):
a lot of the old things, arguably the First World War as
well. But certainly there was like the
old way and then there was the new internationalist order.
And, and that it seems to be that is what is part underneath
all of this, almost beneath the street map, beneath the city
plan, there's almost a layer 0, which is the, the economic

(38:41):
order. And I think, you know, somewhere
like New York, you know, it was planned in that in that earlier
time. And so it was able to kind of
grow and expand that came from aplace of, I guess, abundance and
that, you know, the golden. Match Yeah, that's that's
actually a really good point. I haven't thought about that
before. Think just thinking about Le

(39:02):
Corbusier. So, you know, he was a French or
Swiss, French Swiss maybe. Yeah, French, Swiss, You know,
he, he kind of gets a bad rap. I mean, I'm, I'm no fan of Le
Corbusier or his designs or his ideas or, or any of that.
But if you read his book City ofTomorrow, you'll see like he's

(39:28):
referencing a lot of other people's work and he's
referencing a lot of things thatare already happening, you know,
the cars and yeah, but this economics, you know,
streamlining the numbers and technology, plate glass windows,
steel skyscrapers, elevators. He, I mean, even though he was a

(39:53):
promoter of all of that, and he was also just kind of riding the
wave of something that was already happening.
And, you know, you're right. Like within that kind of
framework, you, you, you might not get the plan of New York
City out of that. You you might just get.

(40:13):
Suburban sprawl, which is, you know, what we've been getting.
That's interesting as well. With Luca Busia in particular,
if you look at his earlier work,he designed a lot of like
churches and he's got these classic images of I think
there's like the he's got like people and then these like
circles that kind of represent the different shapes, you know,
like a sitting person, a standing person, someone lying

(40:34):
down and like he's done all of these studies.
I've got had a look at one of his books or a book on his work
the. Modular.
Yeah, the modular, you know, this kind of idea that would be
very human scaled and, and especially the the residential
design. But then I guess later on and
and some of these more grand plans for the future that they
took on this, this larger kind of project of building grand

(40:59):
sprawling cities, you know. So many of the, you know, the
greatest modernist architects actually started off as like
classical architects or, you know, studying like the small
scale designs. And you know, so now, like when
you go through architecture school now, you know,

(41:20):
everybody's a modernist. There's very few traditional
classical architecture programs out there, you know, but they
don't have the benefit of, you know, having that 12,000 years
of architecture and, and urban history to draw from because,

(41:40):
you know, to them it's just kindof like this clean, you know,
no, we're just going to start from post industrial revolution
and, and on, you know, we're notgoing to concern ourselves for,
you know, human scale and all ofthat.
Well, you're right. And this project, the Urban Form
Standard. Roman architect Vitruvius didn't

(42:02):
invent the column orders. He documented what Greek
builders had refined over centuries.
Medieval cathedral builders didn't calculate flying
buttresses from first principles.
They learned from the successes and failures of previous
cathedrals. Precedent was teacher textbook
and proof rolled into one. Absolutely, and I live by that

(42:22):
every day. I always start with precedent.
Yeah. And I mean, you naturally, you
know, that's, that's not to be like, you know, oh, I'm lazy or
I don't have any good ideas or, you know, whatever it's you, you
just pull from what has worked before.
And then by the very nature of, you know, whatever project comes
your way or, you know, whatever town you're working with, those

(42:46):
variables will affect the thingsthat you just gathered.
So you will, you know, you will develop like a a new novel
contemporary thing. Well, I, I think this is, I
mean, come back to the critique of modernity, which is again,
it's a very, I mean, it's an extension of, of rational

(43:07):
thought of the Enlightenment, I guess this idea that a theory
can be internally consistent, mathematically elegant, but
completely divorced from human reality.
And, you know, we look at these cities that have worked for
centuries, They've been tested by millions of people who have
lived there. They've chosen to make it their
home. And and that's kind of like a
real evidence. And so I think it maybe reflects

(43:29):
the great scientism of the age that we live in, that, you know,
we somehow we can actually design people's lives, that we
come in a sense reflect the machinery of society through the
design of of places. And I think that's that again,
that comes back to a deeper ideological change.
I think that somehow people's lives can be preordained and.

(43:53):
Yeah, kind of manipulated and controlled and yeah.
Populations and and flows of people and stuff like.
That yeah yeah you mentioned Prue and I go you know, that's
that's an example of, you know, top down planning that was not
based on any precedent of how, you know of design or otherwise,

(44:16):
you know, how people actually behave or where people want to
be or that, you know, was designed, you know, kind of like
Brasilia just from 10,000 feet, you know, looking down and and
Pruitt. I go I think that was in Saint
Louis and I think it was built in the 50s somewhere around

(44:40):
there. It performed so poorly that they
tore it down 20 years later. And you know what, a lot of
that, I think the elevators would only stop every 3rd floor.
You know, they were like, oh, wecan be more efficient or
something with the elevators. And, you know, taking Le

(45:03):
Corbusier's idea of the tower ina park where, gosh, if we don't
have all these little houses around and we just put everybody
into one big tower, then you know, everything else can be
this beautiful green space. And, you know, that sounds like
a good idea. And that could even look like a
good idea in a plan view, you know 'cause you'd have a lot of

(45:23):
green and everybody loves to seea lot of green and a lot of
trees. But then the problem is, you
know, we'll whose green is that?It's like this weird amorphous,
semi public, semi private green space.
There's no place for you to likekind of, you know, sit along the
edge and like look in people like to like think about the the

(45:47):
cute little piazzas and plazas like in Italy or something.
And that, that are small and that everybody likes to occupy
the perimeter and kind of, you know, look at the theater of
life happening on the inside. Well, then if you blow that
scale up, you know, even if there is a perimeter, you can't
see anything that that's, you know, happening, you know, at

(46:10):
the, you know, internally. So.
Well, I mean it's interesting aswell with pro ego in particular
the architects in order Yamasaki.
It's also very famous for the original twin towers, the World
Trade Center design and this kind of in this emblem of, of
really internationalism of of 1970s modernity with these, with

(46:33):
these structures and, and sort of what they mean.
There's actually a film I've been meaning to watch, which is
the the myth of pro it ego, which sort of goes into some of
the decline of that place. But look, I mean, we've, we've
been exploring this, this idea of like architectural places.
I mean, keen to maybe just talk a little bit about Bitcoin as
well, man, because I know this is a big a big thing for you.
You're a Bitcoin Bitcoin enthusiast.

(46:53):
Like how did you get interested in in Bitcoin?
Oh, man, I should have been interested at the beginning.
I mean, because it's, you know, it's, it checks all the boxes of
things. I'm interested in computers,
mathematics. I've, I've always been
interested in, in money, not notnecessarily making money, but

(47:14):
just kind of like the idea of money and collecting coins, you
know, when I was growing up. And so I should have known about
it in, you know, 2010, but it, it wasn't until 2016 that I was
actually, I was living in Atlanta at the time, but in New
York City for an award thing. And I just happened to walk by

(47:39):
a, a storefront that said Bitcoin accepted here.
And I thought, oh, what's Bitcoin?
And, and I got home and I started reading about it and
that prompted, I would say a solid like 5 years of non-stop
reading and learning about Bitcoin.

(48:00):
I, I just couldn't get enough. And yeah, so ever since 2016,
I've just been metaphorically all in on Bitcoin.
Yeah. Oh, wow, that's incredible.
And I, I guess I mean, for me and you as well as creative
people, you know, I think something about it, there's a

(48:22):
beauty to it, right? Like I really think it's got an
elegance that maybe it's hard todescribe.
Like how do you describe money as elegant or beautiful?
But I mean it is right? Yeah, no, it, I mean, the, the
way I've, I've come to think about it, I think I mentioned at
at the beginning of our conversation, you know, thinking
about cities in terms of layers.Well, then I also read this book

(48:47):
by Stewart Brand called How Buildings Learn.
And in that book he, you know, also talks about how buildings
are a number of different components.
So you've got like the structure, the foundation, you
know, different types of rooms, plumbing, electrical, you know

(49:10):
all of that. But all of those change at
different rates and are like, some are really easy to change,
like you can paint your room a different color, but then some
are really hard to change, like adding new foundations to your
house really hard. And you know, so he, he

(49:34):
described buildings as layers also.
And so, you know, that just relates so strongly to how I
think about Bitcoin in terms of layers, like, you know, Bitcoin
being this foundation layer, people will criticize it as it's
like, oh, Bitcoin's so boring, you can't do anything with it.

(49:54):
You know, where are my smart contracts and all this kind of
stuff? But, you know, in my mind, you
know, I'm thinking about, I'm thinking about forever.
I'm thinking about like, you know, urban form time scales of
thousands of years. I want that base layer to be as
rock solid and as dumb and boring as possible.
You know, I want that to be likethe strongest foundation

(50:17):
possible for what you're going to build on top of it.
Yeah, I think this might really interesting about that
relationship between the idea ofa city, the the blocks.
And that's something Michael Saylors talked about I think as
well, like, you know, property in Manhattan.
And you know, the, the, the, theanalogy I think is, is, is quite
clear that, you know, these these blocks, literally blocks

(50:39):
that we have with, you know, every 10 minutes in Bitcoin and
then you can fill them with things.
But the, the, the format and thestructure of that is, is set in
stone and and there's something quite profound about that.
And especially when you you lookat the looseness of central bank
monetary policy and, you know, the whims of the market and this
kind of over financialization of, of the way money works, It's

(51:03):
like, OK, you start to see deep down, it's hard to maybe express
through language, but you can feel maybe the the relationship
there and maybe a sense of unease with the way the world
is. And I think, I mean, we do need
to be nuanced about this. You know, I don't think we, I
don't know if we can point a finger at one particular thing

(51:24):
and say this is the issue. But certainly you can feel that
there's a connection there. And I think that's quite
attractive, right? Yeah, no, absolutely.
Yeah. And I even I, this is a while
back, I made a diagram using NewYork City as a way to represent,
you know, how big Satoshi is. And I can't quite remember what

(51:49):
the dimension is, but you know, I, I added up all the areas of
the private blocks of New York City.
You divide that area by 21 million and you know, you end up
with I think maybe it's like 3.7feet on a side, like a little
square and that's represents A Satoshi or, or, or maybe that

(52:10):
represents a whole Bitcoin, I can't remember.
Maybe Satoshi? Yeah.
Yeah, but but thinking about it,you know, in those terms, it it
also helps to, you know, think of the the scale of that 21
million, you know, like if, you know, you own your little
Bitcoin, like what does that look like in terms of Manhattan?
And then you, it's just like this tiny little thing and it's

(52:33):
like, Oh well. Yeah, wow.
Well, I'm interested in. So just on that topic.
So obviously you're at this interesting place in between
architecture, you know, very interested in Bitcoin and in
particular with your architectural work, you're very
much looking at the way things were done before, what you could
call maybe a lower time preference in terms of your
reading your, your, your own study on these topics.

(52:57):
I mean, is there anything that stood out to you as really
inspiring your, your outlook on,on whether it's money,
architecture, society, like whatare you, what are you reading or
what have you read? This sort of left an impression.
Recently I read Alan Berto's book Order without Design, How

(53:17):
Markets Shape Cities. I wish I'd read that two decades
ago. I mean, such an amazing book
and, you know, really captured, you know, as you learn about
architecture and cities, you know, I'm always just thinking
about it. And, you know, there's like in

(53:37):
the back of my mind, there's this list of questions that I
always have like, oh, why is it that way?
Or why doesn't this work? Or, and Berto, in his book, I
mean, he really gets that like kind of he kind of looks at all
those different factors, the technology, social structures

(53:58):
and politics and economics. And in the book he shows how
they all affect cities. And yeah, so that was a, yeah, a
big one. That sounds.
Interesting. I would recommend it.

(54:19):
And then also Ed Glaser's book, I think it's called The Triumph
of the City. So that's one, you know, people
you'll encounter people that, you know, say, I would never
want to live in a city or, you know, cities are just skyscraper
canyons or, and, you know, it just, it helps to have like a

(54:42):
lot of the talking points that Ed Glaser has from his book to
respond, you know, to people like that.
You know, he just helped you or helped me see how cities can,
you know, help solve the problemof, you know, sustainability or,

(55:04):
you know, suburban sprawl. I mean, you know, there's not a
lot of people out there that like suburban sprawl, but then
through their actions, they theykind of indirectly create it.
And so that book also helps you see the connection between like
those, you know, kind of zoning concept and how that translates

(55:29):
into the sprawl concept. Yeah, I think, I think there's a
really interesting space here. I mean, just overall, I mean,
certainly your writing is reallyfascinating, but this idea of
like the collision of like moneyand economic forces and cities,
I think it's really interesting.I'd certainly love to see more
Bitcoiners or more people who are sort of interested in
Bitcoin share their thoughts on that.

(55:51):
Because I mean, I'm from the countryside.
I grew up in a, in a sprawling place.
And I tell you, I mean, cities are, I mean, they are a culture
hub for a reason. There's a, you know, there's a,
there's an energy there. There's a dynamism when you get
people together and you have these, you know, these
encounters, yeah, there's a network effect.
And I think they get a bad rap. Maybe people's experience of a

(56:11):
particular city, maybe it was one that's got it hasn't
followed the the four rules thatyou mentioned earlier.
It's a. Huge, huge blocks and you have
to drive everywhere. But you know, for a city that
has actually human scaled, it can be an incredible place.
Certainly. I mean, my one of my
foundational readings is The Fountainhead Iron Rand.

(56:32):
I don't know if you've read that, but the story of Howard
Rourke, the the young up and coming architect really struck A
chord with everyone. Most people are familiar with
Atlas Shrugged. It's more of a well known, I
guess, and maybe in some circles.
But certainly The Fountainhead stood out to me as just a
beautiful piece of writing. It's very emotive and sort of

(56:54):
speaking from this, I think it was written in the 1940s.
And so it was right at that turning point between kind of
the the old and the new. The old and the new, yeah.
So look, Paul, we've talked about a little quite different
topics here. There's one, one final sort of
aspect I want to touch on was with regards to cities.
And so again, maybe people who haven't worked in the space,

(57:17):
they haven't, you know, they're not super familiar with it.
We've been talking about planning of cities and sort of
the nuance there that, you know,there it is important to have a
street master St. plan that can then be filled with many things
that are maybe not so specifically zoned to, you know,
enable a free market there. But you know, some sense of
structure similar to to bitcoinsrules.

(57:39):
But when it comes to this idea of the 15 minutes city, which
has become very pop, it's kind of a bit of a meme at this
point. How do we think about this?
Because in a sense, this is likea perversion of everything we've
talked about as a control structure.
But tell me about what, what, what you see 15 minute cities
mean? What?
What have they been trying to achieve and why?

(57:59):
You know, how can we think aboutthem so?
I'm going to be honest, I, I haven't read like the book or I
haven't seen, you know, whateverFox News or CNN or whatever is
talking about the 15 minute city, but I have seen the
rumblings about it on, on X. And I thought, what's wrong with

(58:20):
the 15 minute city? Because like, to me, that's just
kind of like just natural, like good urbanism.
Like I, I live, I'm, I'm in Beacon, NY, which is this small
little town about an hour and a half train ride north of the
city. And, you know, beautiful,
idyllic along the Hudson River. And it's got this great mile

(58:45):
long Main Street, beautiful building stock.
It's just such a great scale. It's a 15 minute city like you
know, like I can. Everything I need is within a 15
minute walk of you know, so I. Mean I live in a 15 minute city
as well. I walk.
Everywhere. I don't get it.

(59:06):
I think what it is, to be clear,I think the word has been
hijacked though. I think I mean, what we're
talking about good urbanism thatthis 15 minute city, I mean, it
is a euphemism though, I think for construct control structures
to be put on cities. And you see this in the UK with
these low emission zones where you can't drive a car, you can't

(59:27):
do this, you can't do that. And it seems like it's like,
it's a nice sounding word and itsort of appeals to a kind of
humanism, sort of urbanism. But actually the way it's being
deployed is very top down. And I, I, I think that's, that's
maybe part of it, that there's somebody somewhere has these
ideas that we can, we can retrofit these cities to be like

(59:50):
this. Yeah.
I could definitely see. I mean like everything is way
over regulated. I mean, you know what?
Once. Something is written in a zoning
ordinance or a subdivision regulation.

(01:00:10):
It's really, really hard to get it out of there.
And so, you know, over these last 100 years of, of modern
planning, at least here in America, you know, zoning
ordinances have gone from, you know, 10 page pamphlets to 800
page, you know, multi volumes. And, you know, so if the 15

(01:00:35):
minute thing is about like over regulation and yeah, like
controlling, you know, controlling those, those like
top layers of your lives, like paint colors and things, then
yeah, I'm all, I'm all about that too.
That's. Ridiculous.
Yeah, I mean, and then again, man, I don't even know because I
mean, I think as, as you said, Imean, this seems to be something

(01:00:57):
that's come out of like the the X like echo chamber.
Maybe, I don't know. I mean, maybe it's not even a
thing. I mean, I, I think at the very
least, you know, good urbanism. I mean, I think it's something
we can all agree it now it's, it's when you live in a nice
place, it's very nice and you know, you can go and walk down
to the shops and it's, it's a very idyllic way of living.

(01:01:18):
And I mean, maybe, maybe, hey, man, I, I don't know where this
came from. Maybe I'm, I'm confused.
Apparently I just had a quick look and apparently it's a far
right conspiracy theory that this whole thing.
So man, I'm sorry, maybe I'll put us, you know, put us on the
on the watch list. But look, I think, you know,
certainly re evaluating cities, having a look at what they mean

(01:01:41):
and, and sort of how we live and, and certainly how, if
anything, how cars really dominate a lot of people's
lives, I think is maybe the the key piece here.
It's not like, hey, you can't use your car, but it's like,
man, it's not nice to be stuck in traffic, you know?
Yeah, cars. Cars have really, really
impacted the built environment in more ways than I think people

(01:02:04):
realize. I mean, it's, you know, they,
they take up in a lot of cases, parking lots are larger than the
buildings that they're serving, you know, like A2 car garage,
you know, that's the size of a, of a apartment.

(01:02:25):
So they they require a a ton of space and they can really eat
away at you know what these likegood, you know, universal
principles of, of good urbanism.Paul, what's your favorite city
in the world? Oh, OK, I'm going to have to
give kind of a collection of answers for this because I don't

(01:02:51):
have, like, one favorite becausecities are never just, you know,
one thing. So the most beautiful city in
the world, Paris, you know, and that's a top down plan of, you
know, I mean, from yeah, Houseman, Houseman's Paris it,
you know, he affected everythingfrom the land plan, but then the

(01:03:16):
building facades and, and even down to like their designs for
boot scrapers that you were supposed to install on your
building. So I mean, he planned
everything. Now that's a situation where
you've got, you know, top down happening and it and it produced
Paris, which is great, not Brasilia.

(01:03:37):
But you know, on the other hand,even though Paris is, you know,
this beautiful city, you know, since Houseman, people have
tried to preserve it and, and really preserve it in in like
amber. And in a fact, they've made it

(01:03:57):
to where, you know, the normal, you know, the hoi polloi can't
live there. It's now it's just a city for
the, for the ultra rich, becauseyou know, the six story height
limits and, and all that. So it's like, who are we
preserving Paris for? And so it's not like a real
city. It's more of like this museum
city, but beautiful city. And then, you know, honestly, I,

(01:04:22):
I love small town America. There's something about having
these little grids and these beautiful turn of the century or
like 1900s post offices and the park.
And you know, it's like, to me, it's just like an, an ideal

(01:04:42):
urbanism, small town America andand I'm lucky to live in one.
Oh yeah, so small town America and I'm imagining more eastern
like East Coast small town or you find this anywhere?
Well, I guess there's, you know,there's, you could find it
anywhere like the in like when the railroads were expanding and

(01:05:08):
these railroad companies had these templates for towns and
they're just like, boom, these grids.
And then, you know, really there's a lot of like, templates
for the buildings, you know, as well, you know, so even, you
know, all out West, you know, those are great on the East
Coast. You know, you've got Harpers
Ferry, WV, you know, look that up.

(01:05:30):
Beautiful, you know, Appalachiantown, like along the river,
right on the mountainside. And so there's a lot more, I
guess, variety. Yeah.
Along the East Coast. Yeah, that's incredible.
Look, man, it's been really goodto chat.
So you're plans though for 2025,you're, you're obviously working

(01:05:53):
with historical concepts, producing some of this original
architecture informed by the classical tradition.
You're involved with the Doug Allen Institute as well.
What? What else is on your road map?
Something, but more about what? What's in store for you?
Focusing on the urban Forum standard, you know, right now
I've got chapters one through six or seven done.

(01:06:17):
And you know, now I want to start digging into like the
implementation of these rules and to show like how, you know,
OK, we know what a master St. plan is.
We know how to design a master St. plan.
Well, how do we actually do it in our communities?
So that's that's my next thing. Awesome.
And that's through the Doug Allen Institute as a part of
that. Yeah.
Yeah. That's really awesome.

(01:06:38):
Yeah. I had a good read through.
It was very enjoyable. Thank you.
Thank you. Of what you've got so far.
Well, look, man, we might leave it there.
If people want to follow you, they want to follow your work.
Where? Where's the best place to send
them? I'm you know, I used to be a lot
more active on X but but not so much anymore.
But you can still find me there at PK Me Max.

(01:06:59):
And then I've also got a personal blog that where I've
started to collect a lot of my work.
So you can go to alift.pressandthenyeahdougalleninstitute.org.
Cool. All right.
Thank you very much, Paul. Yeah.
Thank you so much. I am Cody Allingham, and that
was the transformation of value.If you would like to support

(01:07:21):
this show, please consider making a donation either through
my website or by directly tipping to the show's Bitcoin
wallet. Or just pass this episode on to
a friend who you think may enjoyit.
And you can always e-mail me at [e-mail].