I think of architecture as language, and I look within the intra-communication between architects.

I think architecture could be understood as the construction of realities, or the construction of worlds.

The diagram of the house is a portrait of the family, a true portrait, whether it's sad or happy.

The role of architecture, in terms of communication, is not going to drastically change either.

Every time I traveled to a new city, I would learn about local heroes I did not know about, and I would learn about their very impressive contribution to their cities.

In order for architecture to experience its ongoing evolution as a language, there has to be a lot of adjusted copies between how architects draw, think, engage bylaws and constraints.

Communication requires cultural context, and technology facilitates our ability to cross-reference ideas over time. Charles Moore were saying: Enough with the sterile, context-less architecture. Enough with the functional-minded frame of operation. How about a little mess? How about a little, let's say, syntax? A little quotation using history? How about some other meanings or symbols? I think that's the only logical reaction when you have to thoughtfully manage the communication of a lot of information.