Sunlight Matters

Light, Rights & Urban Fights: Daylight in a Densifying World

• Dave Wallace • Season 1 • Episode 13

Share episode

In this thought-provoking episode of Sunlight Matters, we travel across Europe to explore how daylight access, sunlight rights, and urban densification intersect—and often clash.

Joining us are three brilliant minds working at the forefront of daylight analysis and sunlight legislation:

🌞 Mina Gaarder – A Civil Engineer based in Norway who recently completed a master’s thesis on daylight in dense urban areas, comparing regulatory frameworks in Norway, Sweden, the UK, and the U.S. She brings a research-driven lens to how daylight affects housing quality, health, and urban form.

🌞 Susanne Höglin – Stockholm-based building permit architect and former case manager at Stockholm Municipality. Now working at ACC Glas och Fasadkonsult, she investigates how urban densification affects daylight access in existing buildings and how legislation is keeping pace (or not).

🌞 Eftychia Stamataki – Architect and energy-efficient buildings expert, originally from Greece and now based in Stockholm. At ACC Glas och Fasadkonsult, she leads projects on daylight and sunlight studies, as well as thermal comfort, and advocates for the better integration of sunlight in early-stage urban design.

Together, we unpack:

  • 🌇 The difference between daylight and sunlight—and why it matters
  • 🏙️ How shadow mapping tools like Shadowmap empower citizens to challenge poor planning
  • ⚖️ Why laws protecting existing building light access missing or weak in many countries
  • 📐 How older urban codes used geometry to protect sunlight—and what we’ve lost in the digital age
  • 🗣️ Why public education and democratization of urban design are vital to fair development

If you're interested in sunlight analysis, urban planning best practices, or want to understand how sun exposure impacts health and housing quality, this episode is for you.

🔦 Don’t miss this deep dive into the bright side of building cities better.

Mina Gaarder:

The right to light which you have in the UK says that if a window has perceived um a light through their windows for at least twenty years or longer, you have the right to remain that light.

Susanne Höglin:

In in Sweden, between eighteen seventy five and nineteen sixty, daylight requirements were regulated by adjusting building distances and heights. They didn't have all the tools that we have today, but they had an understanding for how important light was and how to let the light in, then the obstruction angles cannot be too big.

Eftychia Stamataki:

The problem is that what is completely ignored in terms of early studies and urban design is sunlight. We don't have enough of knowledge about sunlight and how it affects our lives, but it is not it is ignored unfortunately in the planning process. The municipality services they talk about shadow study. Now, shadow study is a great tool. However, the next step is to talk about hours of sunlight. We need to move from the shadow to the sunlight.

Speaker 00:

Welcome to Sunlight Matters, the podcast that reconnects us with the sun. Join us as we explore the power and influence of our star, the force at the heart of everything. Each episode, we speak with leading experts to uncover the ways sunlight shapes our world.

Dave:

Welcome to today's episode of Sunlight Matters. And we're trying something very different today, which is to talk to three, three incredible people. If we could start with introductions, that would be amazing. So Mina, do you want to start with an introduction to yourself, a bit of background, and then obviously we're here to talk about light and rights to light. It would be great if you can just talk a bit about uh how you got involved in the subject.

Mina Gaarder:

Yes, uh, my name is Mina Gurdir, and in May I finished my master's thesis in civil engineering here in Norway, where I studied daylight in dense urban areas, uh focusing on how daylight is regulated in Norway, how the regulations are applied in practice, and what we might learn from other countries. So my interest uh lie in how densification affects daylight and how daylight uh relates to housing quality and our health.

Dave:

Fantastic. Well, welcome to the podcast. Suzanne.

Susanne Höglin:

Yes, um Suzanne Hagdin. I live in Stockholm and before summer I just finished my studies as a building permit architect, uh, having previously worked for six years as a case manager in Stockholm Municipality with planning and building issues. And at the same time that I started my studies, I also started to work with Paul and FTH at ACC with daylight and sundright studies. And I really got interested in this field of knowledge and uh wanted to know more, so that's why I decided to write my degree project about daylight and um to examine one densification project in Stockholm.

Dave:

So welcome to the podcast and FTK.

Eftychia Stamataki:

Um yeah. Hello from me. I am uh F. Tychia Stamataki. I I come from Greece. Uh I live for the past nine years in Sweden and uh the seven the last seven years in Stockholm specifically, where I work uh in ACC, uh Glasgow Facet Consult. I'm an educated architect from um from Greece, uh, and I did a master uh with energy efficient buildings in Lund. And my interests lie mainly in daylight in uh thermal comfort and the past years um with all of those uh cases in Sweden, especially in Stockholm Rising, uh with the upcoming disinfection. I have worked a lot about the daylight and sunlight access together with Suzanne and with Paul, uh Paul Rogers uh from um my colleague on a lot of them. Uh so yeah, I'm happy here to share my experience with uh the rest of the people here. Thank you for having us.

Dave:

Oh no, well, uh look, it's it's brilliant to have you all because I think the the daylight and the way we live our live our lives and our homes and is such an important topic. And I think you know, from everything that I've kind of understood, it it's something that uh is often relegated in terms of a priority, and I think you know it's great to have all of you because I think you you know you bring a perspective which is is is really sort of interesting around you know the consequences, but also the sort of legislation which sort of hangs around it. So Minna, you know, I'm really interested in the the the the the the research that you've done and the the the the MSc that you've just done. Um and you know I I wondered if you could start by just giving us a general overview of uh legislation as a as regard to things like right to light and you you know some of the differences between some of the different countries.

Mina Gaarder:

Yes, uh so in my master thesis I compared how daylight in existing buildings is regulated in both Norway, Sweden, in the UK, and I looked at some states in the US. Um and out of the four countries, uh the UK has the most established system in my eyes with the right to light legislation. And what I found in the United States is that there is no federal right to light, uh, but the regulation differs between the states and the cities. And some something I found very interesting was um California. They have a Solar Rights Act from 1978, uh, which protects access to sunlight for solar panels, uh, primarily to support renewable energy and not uh residential daylight.

Dave:

I mean that's fascinating. I mean, uh a couple of things in there which are really interesting. One is that the UK is uh is the most advanced. I mean, that's good to hear that you know, here am I in the UK that we're doing something right. Um it so often feels like we're not. Can you uh give us a bit of background on the legislation and what right to light actually is?

Mina Gaarder:

Yes, so the right to light which you have in the UK says that if a window has perceived um a light uh through their windows for at least 20 years or longer, you have the right to remain that light. And that is uh something I found very unique coming from a Norwegian perspective.

Dave:

Well that so that sounds like somebody somewhere along the line in the past has sort of really thought that this is important. And I guess you know, the UK, I'm sat here in a very on a very dreary day, and I'm I'm I wholeheartedly sort of thank that whoever that was who kind of brought that legislation in. But but it's it but it is interesting because there is a case going through the courts at the moment where somebody's having their right to light impinged, I think, by construction in in a place in London. And I presume that they'd be using that legislation to to take the developer to court.

Speaker 01:

Yeah.

Dave:

So that's that's fascinating. And then I I I'm interested in what you said about the the states as well, because uh, you know, from a Californian perspective, that whole thing of protecting uh the the the the energy production rather than you know people's sort of sense of well-being, i is that sort of common across the US or is that particular to California?

Mina Gaarder:

That was particular to uh California. And then I looked at San Francisco. Uh there I found uh uh something called Proposition K, which is from 1984, uh which prevent new buildings from casting shadows on public parks. Uh yes, uh so that like clearly links the daylight to health and well-being.

Dave:

So, I mean, and that's interesting because um, you know, that sort of touches on the effects of landscape in terms of this as well. So you know, that's fascinating that they're they're sort of protecting the parks. I mean, have you got any idea as to why that would be?

Mina Gaarder:

Um no, I can't remember now, but uh I remember it's um uh preserving like the daylight in over 70 parks across San Francisco. So uh yeah.

Dave:

Well may maybe that is to do with health and well-being as well. So making sure that people people can get into parks and uh uh and sort of enjoy the maximum amount of uh sunlight. So um so in in terms of your because you're based in Norway, aren't you? And it's Yes. So what's the legal framework like in the Nordics generally?

Mina Gaarder:

Yeah, so the Nordics I found is very similar to um Sweden, which I'm sure Susan and FT uh will talk about later. Um uh in Norway we don't have any rules protecting the existing buildings, uh, but we have um uh we have uh regulation regulations regarding when you build something new. And those regulations for daylight is um uh um uh written down is something we call tech 17. Uh and for daylight, tech seventeen requires either an average daylight factor uh of two percent in rooms such as bedrooms, living rooms, or kitchen.

Dave:

Uh or sorry, did you say two two percent?

Mina Gaarder:

Two percent average daylight factor.

Dave:

Yeah. Well, at least it's something, hey. Yeah.

Mina Gaarder:

Uh or uh tech 17 also open up open up to uh use of a simplified uh version, which is the wall to um window ratio. Uh and in order to use that rule, you can't have an obstruction angle of uh any more than 45 degrees.

Speaker 01:

Wow.

Mina Gaarder:

Yeah.

Dave:

Fascinating. So Susanne, how how how does that compare to Sweden and um you know the the the legislation in Sweden?

Susanne Höglin:

Yeah, very interesting to hear about the two percent, because in in Sweden uh it's a one percent data factor that is the the limit, the lower limit.

Dave:

But that that uh can I that just seems extraordinarily low.

Eftychia Stamataki:

It's uh it's uh I I want to point out though that one is median and the other is average. Right. So normally a two percent average will uh have a good um correlation with the one percent median. It's a little um uh average, uh we use median in Sweden because it's considered to be more um representative of a room's area.

Speaker 01:

Okay.

Eftychia Stamataki:

So that's a little difference there. And I think uh all the some other countries also have average.

Speaker 01:

Okay. No interest.

Eftychia Stamataki:

So just the calculations uh person here.

Dave:

But it but it but I I don't know. It to me it feels very low, but at least it's something. Yeah.

Susanne Höglin:

Yeah, something. Yes, but just like Mina mentioned, my my interest also lies very much in um the difference between um uh new construction and existing buildings, and that's why what I wrote my my project about. But uh generally you can say that um daylight um legislation in in Sweden uh between 1875 and 1960, daylight requirements were regulated by adjusting building distances and heights, so there weren't any precise uh numbers, but from the 1970s and onwards the the required the requirement has been set in the form of a daylight factor. So this 1% of the skylight outside must reach an indoor surface. Um so that's a general overview.

Dave:

So can I can you just sort of talk about the old legislation versus the new legislation? Like what what what were the impacts of changing it?

Susanne Höglin:

I think this it's very interesting, this um working with the distances because um they didn't have all the tools that we have today, but they had an understanding for how important light was and how to let the light in, and that then the obstruction angles cannot be too big. So it was like a general um plan in Stockholm when big parts of Stockholm were being built in the end of the 19th century that the streets were to be 18 meters wide and the houses 19 and a half um meters um high. And that relationship would um assure uh enough light to get in. And later on we have been able to see that there are some problems even in these um the areas, but at least it's uh it's it's it's a good ground rule. Um but today we don't have that anymore. With there is no um lower limit for how wide a street should be, or the distance between two houses. And we can see now in recent development plans that uh sometimes the distances can be very short, even down to uh th streets uh thirteen meters wide or or courtyards in courtyards being um as low as thirteen meters wide.

Dave:

So so and and was the change to reflect the fact that you know they wanted more people the urbanization if in effect. Did they want to allow for taller buildings to be built? Or you know, I'm just kind of interested in in why the change happened.

Susanne Höglin:

Yeah, I think we there is this great densification going on since the beginning of the 21st century. Stockholm City has uh a goal, a housing goal to build 140,000 dwellings or apartments um until 2035, I think. And basically that's uh to be compared with the new Million Programme, this uh public house this huge public housing project between 1965 and 1974 when when uh the state built uh one million um houses and apartments, but all over Sweden. So this is um this 140,000 is only in Stockholm and can be compared to that. And but then in the 60s and 70s, um the areas where they built they weren't um uh there was nothing there. It was green spaces and and uh but today you have to build this in already existing environments and that's a real challenge. And uh to fulfill this housing goal, yeah, that means that um the buildings become quite high and uh that they they have a short distance to each other.

Dave:

So so you've kind of got this balance between light and the need for housing, i i in essence, and I guess that's been played out across you know the whole of the whole of Europe and and probably North America as well. I mean, maybe less so in North America where they have a bit more space to kind of build into.

Susanne Höglin:

And so many other parameters as well. I guess that's the problem that daylight and sunlight is only one of all the aspects that you need to weigh in and and consider in a local development plan.

Dave:

So But can you give us me a sense of how important it is, like in as part of that planning process? So you know what what what priority is light given? So you you know, again, I've I've talked to a a a few people from the from an architectural background and and people like Paul, and what you get is a sense that you know light i is often not considered until towards the end of a bat that sort of architectural process. So I was just wondering if you get any sense of its priority.

Susanne Höglin:

Yeah, that that's I think that's the key that um it's important to get it in very early, uh actually when you decide the distance between I mean later on you can m make some adjustments, you can change maybe the colour of the th there are lots of small things you can do, but it's in the early stage when you when you set the plan um that you need probably to consider the daylight and sunlight issues.

Dave:

Fantastic. And and F the K here, I I'm really interested in like the Nordic context, but also how that kind of compares to southern Europe, where I'm guessing daylight isn't such an issue. But but but I guess the starting question is the one per cent or the two per cent that's taking into um account uh the changing seasons and uh winter and summer as well, because I I presume that that the sort of shadow map of a uh of a of a building is gonna be vastly different as the seasons change, particularly in the Nordics.

Eftychia Stamataki:

Yeah, no, exactly that is a great point. Uh and I'm gonna connect uh I'm gonna connect what I want to say with uh what Suzanne just said. Now, daylight uh has uh a quantity a quantitative um um requirement in Sweden. It has this 1% uh median uh two percent uh average in Norway. However, this refers to daylight factors, so we're talking about irrelevant to orientation, location, and weather.

Dave:

Okay.

Eftychia Stamataki:

But the problem in Sweden is that it's a country compared to the south of Europe that I can talk about uh Greece, is that it actually has a quantitative requirement. The problem, and and it is being taken into account, and in urban studies in some in some way. We would like a little more earlier, but it is. The problem is that uh what is completely ignored in terms of uh early studies and uh uh urban design is sunlight. There is a very big um um we don't we don't have enough of knowledge about sunlight and how it can um and how it it affects we we know how it affects our lives, but it is not uh it is ignored unfortunately in the planning process. There are some studies, especially where we have been um involved, that we kind of push for the sunlight as a as a study object, but uh most of the um uh communal like the uh municipality uh services they talk about shadow study. Now, shadow study is a great tool, and I think that uh it's a great tool for uh the neighbor to open a website like for example Shadow Map and see, oh, look, here I'm gonna be shaded. However, the next step is to talk about hours of sunlight. We need to move from the shadow to the sunlight. So Sweden is not talking unfortunately about sunlight. And that has to do a little with the fact that the old code didn't have a quantitative requirement, and the new upcoming code has no requirement for sunlight.

Dave:

So can I just just yeah just so thank you so much for the clarification because my brain gets confused between daylight and sunlight, so it's really good that you kind of made that distinction.

Eftychia Stamataki:

It's two different, yeah.

Dave:

Of course, of course it's but you know, I guess because in my head, like 1% daylight, I mean wow. I mean that's even worse than 1% sunlight, i i you know, I guess.

Eftychia Stamataki:

Yeah. Yeah, I understand, yeah, yeah. Uh it's um although it's i it's a quantitative requirement and it's uh we could have more, but uh unfortunately doesn't refer to the sun, you know, this bright thing.

Dave:

No, i i but it is it's interesting. I mean, for the first time I slept in a hotel room. I dropped my son off at university. I was telling me my parting gift to him, by the way, was an incandescent bulb to give him some infrared. Um so yeah, three pounds I spent on it, or three three euros I spent on it. So uh but we stayed in a hotel with no outside window, and I think it was the first time I've ever stayed in a ho and it by the end of the day two, like I was like, I said to my wife, you have to go, I can't stand it anymore. And it sort of just shows you the impact that this can have. You know, that was one day, you know. And if people are living in places, you can really understand how important all of all of these things are.

Eftychia Stamataki:

Yeah. Was this in UK?

Dave:

This was in the UK, yeah.

Eftychia Stamataki:

Okay, yeah. Um, yeah, so uh so I think it's quite good that uh Sweden has all this, like they're trying to guard in some way. However, there is a lot of things that could be done more, especially in the urban planning. And in the urban planning, I really like the comment from uh Suzanne about the geometrical, like the geometry, um like uh the how the old codes used to have this just um you know geometry and volume uh measurements that were um giving the instructions on um how to do the urban design. And and and that is how it is in Greece, actually, talking about connection to South Europe. Like in Greece there is no quantitative um uh quantitative requirement for daylight. We don't have daylight factor in the code. Uh however, there is a lot of like um uh measurements uh somebody has to take in order to be able to uh get the ideal volume as it is called by the older architects. So we have this protection when it comes to urban design, that there is there there has to be some withdrawal of the uh top floors so that you get access to the sky view, so that you get access to daylight, to ventilation, something quite more important in South Europe. So it is actually interesting. I didn't know this about Sweden, that although we had this geometrical uh requirements, this geometry things like you know, uh uh distance from the street, the height of the building, moving on to the future, moving on to nowadays that we have simulation tools, 3D tools, people tend to forget the base. Yes. People tend to forget the oh yeah, you know, like maybe I need to measure the street, and maybe my building doesn't have to be higher than the street, or I can have some floors that are uh uh drought, like they are more to the inside of the of the plot. So uh I I really like this comment. I didn't know actually that Sweden had these rules and said, ah, it's fine now, people know, because they don't. Right. Apparently.

Dave:

Well it's it seems to be so often the way on this topic that the that in the past they had more of a handle as to uh what was going on and why they were doing it. And so I I mean I guess it's it y you know, when you sort of think about um and I guess this is for all of you, but when you think about like what needs to be done going forward, it it sounds like there did does need to be more work put into things like sunlight and daylight and planning, you know, this it sounds like a really important topic. So so so what should be done, do you think, or what should be people be kind of researching and looking at now? I and uh Efter here, if you want to start with that.

Eftychia Stamataki:

Um well I don't I cannot say what needs to be done. Of course, I would love to you know to have more um uh clarified uh laws and more you know like clear clear laws, more uh quantitative um uh requirements. However, one of the things that for me it's the most important is the democratization of the process of urban design. So of course, Sweden and Greece and most European countries have open platforms where people can uh discuss and can see the suggestions. However, that is something that is not known to everybody. So you can see, and uh Suzanne might have more um examples of that in Stockholm, but you can see cases where you have like a neighborhood that it's older people, that it they are natives, like Swedish people, and they know how the things work. So they have access and uh are able to change, but then you have neighborhoods where intensification happens more intensively, but there are neighborhoods with more immigrants that don't know exactly how things work. And then and there you notice that people do not know the processes, people do not know what is happening, who they can contact, how they can appeal a decision and everything. So I think for me that is the most we need more education to the people, to actual citizens to know like how they can affect um a decision.

Dave:

No, interesting. And and Suzanne, I mean, I I I'd love to hear your thoughts, but I also the the thing that you said, which sort of struck me, and I think Minna mentioned it as well, is about the fact that the the the legislation is there for new bills rather than existing dwellings as well. So, you know, which seems sort of strange in many ways. So I I wonder if you could talk about that, but then you know, open it up to things that you think could happen and research that needs to be undertaken.

Susanne Höglin:

Yeah, that's what I was so fascinated with when I started to realize that it is like that. That in Sweden there's no law that protects how much the access to daylight may be impaired for existing buildings. It's like Minna said in Norway: the building code only applies to new construction. Um so as the legislation is designed, the planning may take place in the visinet of existing building as long as it does not konstitute a so kald significant inkonvenience. And that can only be decided in in court. And that is the thing, because there is no rules or regulations for existing bildings. All these cases have to be decided in in the kurts. And they have to decidet if it is a significant inconvenience or not. And they also have to decide if um detail it is sufficient so called. But there's no way to measure exactly what is sufficient or what is a significant inconvenience as it is for new um construction we where you have this one percent. Even if it's low, it still is something that you can measure and hold on to. So that's why I think it's been really interesting also to look at how the courts argue in their how do you call it, in their yeah, in their rulings or their judgments. Um for example, you can find sometimes that uh because outlook uh is also a part of daylight, and that has now been removed. from the new building code. There is no demand. Oh sorry, there there is a demand for outlook from areas where you eat or like living room, but not any longer for the bedroom. And then they argue that that is not as important. And then I I in my view you can just as well argue the opposite that for someone who is sick or confined to bed for one reason or the other for a longer period, it can be very important to have an outlook from your bedroom window. It was interesting when you mentioned the hotel with no window and after only 24 hours you you just wanted to get out of there.

Dave:

Well I I totally and I mean I think you know if you think about aging populations as well and people going into care homes and y you know if that if we don't protect all of these things then you know I guess people's mental health and you know their wellness will really really suffer. So it it it's kind of fascinating to to kind of hear what's going on. And I mean Minar I just wondered in terms of the research that you did were you did you come to any conclusions about uh the the right model that you know people should be applying or countries should be applying to this?

Mina Gaarder:

I looked very much up to the right of light and the guidance that BR209 provides with um calculations of vertical sky components on the facade. And um I also with my master thesis I also did a case study to see how the daylight is um is uh treated in existing buildings um and what I found is uh very similar to what FTH and Suzanne is talking about that the people with um uh people with the no no knowledge and know where to look and uh they can kind of defend their daylight and uh the people with uh yeah maybe immigrants or other neighborhoods they like they don't understand that uh which oh I'm sorry no no worries so they they don't understand who what what the legislation or the law may be or who to talk to. Yes that's correct yeah so it provides a very different or um provides a very large gap between uh groups in the society uh and also my case study found that in Norway it can be very expensive to try to defend your daylight you need lawyers daylight consultants and uh yes you need to know the knowledge yourself and that is why like a tool like Shadow Map it's such a good uh and even the free version is such a good tool for yeah and easy to understand.

Dave:

Well I mean it is you're you're right it is amazing how easily you can kind of look at the the the impact of building you know the ability actually to put in new buildings as well and sort of model all of that out I think is it it is very cool. So I would say that myself.

Mina Gaarder:

And easy to use.

Dave:

But I think I think you know that uh FTE is you use the word democratization and I think that's you know exactly what you're saying Minna as well that this this process this because you know we we might be sort of sleepwalking ourselves into a situation where only the rich can afford to to to to kind of fight this and it that isn't good for society at the end of the day.

Mina Gaarder:

Yeah and the rich can always move to an apartment with better lighting if their daylight is affected.

Eftychia Stamataki:

So yeah or Hawaii so uh yes nice although I from what I understand they're building bunkers in Hawaii so uh you know they're going up the ground no daylight there no daylight there no so uh thinking about the Korean film Parasite I think often films can be very like telling there the the poor people they basically live in the basement with and and um the rich people uh they live on top of a hill but it it's so uh it's it's you're totally right totally right I think it's such a fascinating topic uh yeah the I I wanted to add a little the fact that however the um that uh in Sweden if I'm not wrong uh you don't need as an as a private person to hire the daylight specialist or the lawyer as long as you manage in written and with a free tool or with any other way manage to convince the commune the municipality that they need to force the developer to do this study so we have had a a case where um a very well written statement with angles and lines on a on a paper could force the the municipality to demand the developer to pay for that. And that is and that goes again to the fact that if you have the knowledge that you can appeal it you don't need exactly the tools you just need the will and the to know how to write it down.

Dave:

But it but it's so often how do you get started on it you know because I I I can imagine like I you know I live in a nice nice house in in the the English countryside if someone came and decided to put up a huge um tower block next to me you know it'd be like where do you where do you kind of start in terms of that process and again things like shadow map are a great way of you can start modelling all of this out and it often is a good point to sort of start that process off isn't it? Yep. Yeah fantastic fantastic well listen we're we're we're we're we're running short on time I just wondered if there's yeah any of you've got anything else that you wanted to add because I mean I I'm walking away from this having learned an awful lot um about the whole process and you know e even again just to just to kind of remember that daylight and sunlight are different things. Does anyone else else have anything to add?

Susanne Höglin:

Sorry I'm just curious whether um because it it's funny that we have these double standards for existing buildings and and new construction. I mean may maybe there are other areas as well where there are double standards but I'm curious whether we will see in the future that uh they will start to um apply um an exact rule as we have for new construction for the existing buildings.

Eftychia Stamataki:

I don't know what you say and Mina I think uh to answer I I I I mean I would love if that could happen if we would have like a more specific uh requirement for the existing as we have for the new uh but I think that uh it's also essential to go back to the basics like to be able to recognize a very narrow street in a very high building from the from the the actual um educate the lawmakers educate the decision the judges you know and I think that you and Paul have done a lecture in um the appealing court right so I think that's a good step so um I think that's also something together with new quantitative requirements.

Dave:

Very interesting very interesting perfect well listen thank you so much uh really enjoyed the conversation