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

Our idea of nature is increasingly being determined by scientific developments. And they have become decisive for our image of reality.

Descriptions of my work depress me. They make me feel pinned down.

For me the meaning of my work is much more fluid.

I'm often called an old-fashioned modernist. But the modernists had the absurd idea that architecture could heal the world. That's impossible. And today nobody expects architects to have these grand visions any more.

I've been such an outsider my whole life.

I've learned that in order to achieve what I wanted, it made more sense to negotiate than to defend the autonomy of my work by pounding my fist on the table.

Large-scale public projects require the agreement of large numbers of people.

Architecture is involved with the world, but at the same time it has a certain autonomy. This autonomy cannot be explained in terms of traditional logic because the most interesting parts of the work are non-verbal. They operate within the terms of the work, like any art.

But I absolutely believe that architecture is a social activity that has to do with some sort of communication or places of interaction, and that to change the environment is to change behaviour.

We only exist in terms of how we think we exist. Meaning every cultural development is fabricated and can be fabricated.

It's too simplistic to advance the notion of the autonomy of art as a reason for turning away from the public. You can have autonomy and simultaneously have connections with the social and political world.

Scientific reality is the modern human condition, and you can see that in the symbolic nature of my work.

You might say that when you step inside, you're entering a honorific space, but that's something totally different than experiencing it. And in architecture the experience comes first. That has the deepest effect on us.

The multiplicity of ideas is what I'm interested in.