“We need desperately to relearn the art of disposing of buildings to create different kinds of space: the quiet, enclosed, isolated space; the hustling, bustling space, pungent with vitality; the paved, dignified, vast, sumptuous, even awe-inspiring space; the mysterious space; the transition space which defines, separates and yet joins juxtaposed spaces of contrasting character.

We need sequences of space which arouse one’s curiosity, give a sense of anticipation, which beckon and impel us to rush forward to find that releasing space which dominates, which climaxes and acts as a magnet, and gives direction.”
Rudolph, Paul Marvin, 1918-1997. "The Changing Philosophy of Architecture." Architectural Forum 101 (July 1954): 120.

“From my viewpoint the idea of the campus is that the spines are there and that they might be fleshed out in many different ways, but that the principle of it being one building, i.e. connected, and that the spaces in between are thereby formed on a relatively large scale. You see, I am back to the Piazza San Marco which doesn't have a tree in sight, and all buildings are literally connected with all other buildings, and there are many different uses, and there is focus, a tremendous sense of space, and scale. It remains the greatest outdoor living room in Europe, I believe. Its vitality is there, it has little to do with style, it has little to do with materials, it has to do with the psychology of architectural space.
I do not think it is generally recognized how different conceptually the SMTI campus is. That the whole of America, almost the whole of America, is based on the freestanding building in a plane of space, and that the space in between is simply there. It has no use, no real meaning. And that is a tragedy because the European example is the exact opposite. It took many buildings, built over great length of time, and by placement formed a greater whole, a social whole if you will. And we haven't got the hang of it. But I would insist that the basic thinking at SMTI it is the exact opposite. I don't mean stylistically, which it may or may not be but -- well, it is different of course, but that is not the real point. The real point is that the buildings are connected to form a greater whole, and that whole is a social entity, and that entity is not yet fully developed.
Rudolph, Paul Marvin, 1918-1997. "Sub Rosa: Interview with Paul Rudolph". Ed. Lasse B. Antonsen, January 12, 1996.

"That summer that I graduated, that I got my Bachelor’s degree, I started to work for a firm in Birmingham, Alabama, and indeed worked for them for the whole year. It wasn’t until this time that I discovered that I did not know really how to put materials together, or how to make working drawings. This came as a rude shock to me. I wanted to design, but I was not fully equipped to design. It affected me tremendously. I remember that year I could hardly talk, literally, for a whole year. But I did learn, as I look back on it, more during that year than any other single year. This was a very bad firm, it so happens. The buildings were terrible. But they were put together reasonably well. I learned what it was to keep the weather and wind out and how a building was affected by the unions and the various trades, and the sequence of erection. It was a great eye-opener. It was a very real experience. Then, fortunately for me, that year was immediately followed by an almost equally important year which was spent at Harvard with Walter Gropius [1879-1964], who undoubtedly was the most important single influence or man who influenced me. He made very clear what the real issues were, and did not require you, unlike many people seem to feel, that you follow or do it the way he did it. He set me free. This opened up tremendous avenues for me to explore in my own way."
Rudolph, Paul Marvin, 1918-1997, and John Peter, 1917-1998. John Peter Interviews Paul Rudolph [Transcript]. Library of Congress, Washington, DC, 1959.
Recorded in New Haven, CT on March 27, 1959.

"It was during that time [mid 1960s] that Rudolph was offered a job doing the East Pakistan Agricultural University in what is now Bangladesh. He had done some preliminaries for it, but had not gotten very far. He was getting busy. He wasn’t sure if he wanted to do it. He asked me about it. I said I thought it was important to do it – to do a good job. He signed a contract, I think kind of reluctantly. I think he really did it because he thought it would be good for me. We started working on it. ...Rudolph never saw it. He was in Dhaka a couple of times and each time he made a point of telling me he did not visit it. He had a funny relationship to the project."
William Grindereng interviewed by Bruce Barnes, June 28, 2006

“Less is more.” Mies van der Rohe;

“Much ado about next to nothing” Frank Lloyd Wright;

“Almost nothing is too much.” Reyner Banham;

“Less is a bore.” Robert Venturi;

“Too much is never enough.” Morris Lapidus;

“More and more, more is more.” Rem Koolhaas;

“Nothing ever measures up to what I expect, nothing.” Paul Rudolph