I think all good architecture should challenge you, make you start asking questions. You don't have to understand it. You may not like it. That's OK.

Architecture is the beginning of something because it's - if you're not involved in first principles, if you're not involved in the absolute, the beginning of that generative process, it's cake decoration.

Architecture is the story of how we see ourselves. It is the architect's job to service everyday life.

I've always been interested in an architecture of resistance - architecture that has some power over the way we live. Working under adversarial conditions could be seen as a plus because you're offering alternatives. Still, there are situations that make you ask the questions: 'Do I want to be a part of this?'

Architecture is a negotiated art, and it's highly political, and if you want to make buildings, there is diplomacy required.

Architecture is a result of a process of asking questions and testing them and re-interrogating and changing in a repetitive way.

I fought violently for the autonomy of architecture. It's a very passive, weak profession where people deliver a service. You want a blue door, you get a blue door. You want it to look neo-Spanish, you get neo-Spanish. Architecture with any authenticity represents resistance. Resistance is a good thing.

Somehow, architecture alters the way we think about the world and the way we behave. Any serious architecture, as a litmus test, has to be that.

My buildings don't speak in words but by means of their own spaciousness.