For me space is highly charged — all conditions of space are defined by political and social agendas. When looking at space or spaces, one makes aesthetic decisions about the quality of that space, what one is really doing is critiquing the political and social consequences of that space.

Its seems rather a burden, and maybe absurd, that space is critiqued independently of the context that frames it and, inevitably, the conversation veers towards an idea that decisions and judgement of spaces are made simply as aesthetic or monetary values.

Once you define space, the inevitable second question is ‘what is form?’ and then ‘what is function?’ Function is the great red herring which modernism attempted to apply to space as a scientific means of collaboration and definition, in order to make decisions about form. This seemed like a very useful tool but, in fact, has led to an over bureaucratisation and generated huge engines of administration, which eventually wish to control the territory of space.

Form is really an expression of an age and the consequence of an exploration of the meaning of space, within the context in which one lives in. If form is only informed by function, then the culture that we live in would have to be singular and universal. Ultimately, space takes on a shifting meaning which evolves generationally and is surely affected increasingly in the world in which we live, by global, local and political agendas.

I don’t believe in space that is translatable and collapsible into a single paradigm. I would argue that space is ultimately impossible to define with words but is a sensory experience of the individual or collective who choose to identify with it.

For me, the age of space defined by architectural style is finally over; releasing space-makers from the tyranny of rhetoric and, hopefully, plunging into a world of cultural, social and political practice in the business of space-making.