I suppose I'm trying to build an architecture that's as timeless as possible, although we're all creatures of our age.

I don't think architecture is radical. How can something that takes years and costs millions be radical?

The difference between good and bad architecture is the time you spend on it.

Architecture has curled up in a ball and it's about itself. It has found itself either as a freakshow, where you're not sure if it's good or bad but at least it's interesting, or at the behest of forces of commerce.

Often, architects work too hard trying to make their buildings look different. It's like we're actors let loose on a stage, all speaking our parts at the same time in our own private languages without an audience.

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.