Buildings designed exclusively on scientific principles will depress their occupants and constrain their creativity.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Buildings designed with careful attention to aesthetics arouse and enlighten their occupants and that promotes their good health.
There are so many constraints on the architect that public buildings almost never feel free or enjoyable.
I studied at a time when buildings were sterile things, and their creators were hands-off people - super-intelligent people, but you felt they didn't love the stuff buildings are made from.
I always think of buildings in their settings, but so do other architects.
Buildings are 'humane' only when they promote peaceful human co-existence.
All architecture is shelter, all great architecture is the design of space that contains, cuddles, exalts, or stimulates the persons in that space.
One of the stated goals of the postmodern movement in architecture was a greater sensitivity to the people who live in or use newly designed buildings.
A painter, a sculptor, a writer, they can express freely. They don't affect society as a whole. We build buildings that have a purpose, that stay there for hundreds of years or decades.
And a building must be like a human being. It must have a wholeness about it, something that is very important.
People can inhabit anything. And they can be miserable in anything and ecstatic in anything. More and more I think that architecture has nothing to do with it. Of course, that's both liberating and alarming.