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

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

Britain loves a bargain, but you don't get good, lasting architecture on the cheap.

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.

I do very little industrial design. I'm asked a lot, but I certainly don't see myself as an industrial designer.

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.

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

I do quite like Gehry's Guggenheim. But where in Bilbao it's seen as an outgrowth of years of investment in urban design and engineering, in Britain it's seen as the catalyst for urban regeneration rather than the icing on the cake.

It is difficult to separate oneself from one's design moralities.

If you look at a building by Mies van der Rohe, it might look very simple, but up close, the sheer quality of construction, materials and thought are inspirational.

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

Seeing architecture differently from the way you see the rest of life is a bit weird. I believe one should be consistent in all that one does, from the books you read to the way you bring up your children. Everything you do is connected.