There are people who design buildings that are not technically and financially good, and there are those who do. Two categories - simple.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
A building is no good if someone's got to explain to you why it's good. You can't say you don't know enough about architecture - that's ridiculous. It's got to work on many levels.
I always think of buildings in their settings, but so do other architects.
One thing I learn - I've been in practice now for half a century or more, and the most important ingredient for an architect to do a good building is to have a good client. I think a client counts for as much as fifty per cent.
If, early on, you know how things are put together, then you can build. The architect is in charge of making - he is not an artist.
Architecture is not a profession for the faint-hearted, the weak-willed, or the short-lived.
Building is just skilled labor, I suppose. It's a lot of work. I don't mind other people building them, but the way things go together and are made is interesting to me; I like that a lot.
I love buildings that aren't purpose-built.
A building has integrity just like a man. And just as seldom.
When you design a building, you start from a general philosophy, and you come down, and you start from detail and come up. Only the theoretical architect believes that you can make the concept and then sometime, somebody will come to build it.
Good buildings come from good people, and all problems are solved by good design.