Well, it’s not so much a master plan, because a master plan, I look at it from a, a 30,000 foot view and say the master plan says, this is Asia, this is Africa, or you know, however you lay it out. What I look at is stop designing exhibits that are really species specific so that you can’t change them or stop designing exhibits that an exhibit should have maybe a 20 year life expectancy because of technological advancements, AI advancements that you need to come back and keep up with the times and incorporate those into the exhibit. If you build a bunch of exhibits out of big, heavy concrete and you’ve got all these load bearing walls where you can’t move things around after 10, 15, 20 years, you spend a fortune trying to change it. And, and that’s, that inhibits sues from doing a lot of that when it comes to master plans. It’s like Brookfield looks at it and goes, it, it’ll cost me four or $5 million just to tear down the old packer building. Whereas if you, if you looked at an exhibit, say, I wanna make it so that it can be multipurposed and 20 years from now if that’s not a priority species, I wanna be able to go in and change it without spending millions and millions of dollars to meet my new needs. Now that means the back area has to be designed the same way. And we don’t tend to do that.
