If there really is no new way to be found, we are not afraid to stick with the old one that we found previously. So, I do not make every building different.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Changes in the traditional way of building are only permitted if they are an improvement. Otherwise stay with what is traditional, for truth, even if it be hundreds of years old has a stronger inner bond with us than the lie that walks by our side.
I believe buildings are alive, and when you want to make a change, you have to change in the same symphony.
I have often wondered what it is an old building can do to you when you happen to know a little about things that went on long ago in that building.
I want my buildings to take root and look as if they've always been there. It isn't about pastiche or adapting what's already there. It's about trying to blend the future and the past.
One of the general considerations about new buildings is that people tend to say that anything new is a monstrosity. And then after a while they either accept them or they go on thinking that they are monstrosities. Reactions vary. This depends to some extent on the quality of the building.
Each new situation requires a new architecture.
Every building is a prototype. No two are alike.
Architecture is a living thing. If I want to leave something to the future, it has to be able to change - but retain something of the ethos that we built up over 50 years.
Where can we find greater structural clarity than in the wooden buildings of old? Where else can we find such unity of material, construction and form? here, the wisdom of whole generations is stored.
In New York City, when they develop something, they never use the old buildings. It's so wasteful. Why not use what's there?