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.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I love buildings that aren't purpose-built.
I am convinced that a good building must be capable of absorbing the traces of human life and taking on a specific richness... I think of the patina of age on materials, of innumerable small scratches on surfaces, of varnish that has grown dull and brittle, and of edges polished by use.
I was always really geeky about design and buildings. Always into architecture as a kid.
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.
Buildings designed exclusively on scientific principles will depress their occupants and constrain their creativity.
I don't want to be too harsh, but there's very little evidence for 'intelligent design' or any sort of creator.
There are people who design buildings that are not technically and financially good, and there are those who do. Two categories - simple.
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.
Since Stonehenge, architects have always been at the cutting edge of technology. And you can't separate technology from the humanistic and spiritual content of a building.
I don't know if it's genetic or just because I was surrounded by it, but I was always fascinated with building and construction and development.