There is no reason to design buildings that are more basic and rectilinear, because with concrete you can cover almost any space.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
It's my goal to make a building as immaterial as possible. Architecture is a very material thing. It takes a lot of resources, so why not eliminate what you don't need as long as you're able to achieve the same result?
Concrete you can mold, you can press it into - after all, you haven't any straight lines in your body. Why should we have straight lines in our architecture? You'd be surprised when you go into a room that has no straight line - how marvelous it is that you can feel the walls talking back to you, as it were.
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.
Each material has its specific characteristics which we must understand if we want to use it. This is no less true of steel and concrete.
Architecture doesn't come from theory. You don't think your way through a building.
The imperial vastness of late Roman architecture was made possible by the invention of concrete.
Because, if we understand how a building is to be produced and we find a way that it can be more simply produced, then obviously we are contributing to building better buildings more easily.
I always think of buildings in their settings, but so do other architects.
Architecture is restricted to such a limited vocabulary. A building is either a high-rise or a perimeter block or a town house.
I don't see that any buildings should be excluded from the term architecture, as long as they are done properly.