Stone is a beautiful material. It has a sense of permanence. It has tactile qualities, and by tactile, I do not mean something that you necessarily go and touch, but you feel that if you could touch it, it would feel pleasant. There is a richness in stone, natural variations and variegations that are unlike man-made products. In the man-made products - metal panels or glass panels or precast panels - there is a uniformity, an eveness that sometimes is most inappropriate. The variation in the stone can give the building greater warmth, richness, plesence, and it reduces the abstractness of the buildings. Modern buildings tend to be too abstract, and by modern I don't mean buildings that belong to a modern aesthetic but just buildings of our time. Modern institutions are of a scale and a repetitive nature that tend to become very abstract. So does the modern process of construction that applies to all materials. Qualities that can counteract that tendency to abstractness are very welcome, and stone helps us in the regard.

What actually influenced my initial use of stone wasn't just a formal desire to use stone and make a stone building. What I think distinguishes our buildings from many other architects' buildings that have used stone is that we never try to make the stone look like it looked historically.

We didn't pretend that a building was made out of heavy masonary, heavy stone. We wanted to show that the stone was actually used as a panel, as an infill, that it was glazed in just like a metal panel or a glass panel. I try to find a way in which I can use that material, which is perceived as being natural material, not a technical material, how to use it in a highly technical way. That coincided with the stone industry being able to actually do that.

As far as drawbacks to using stone, what I find a little bit discouraging in the process of working on several of these buildings - which is not unusual in architecture - is that sometimes what is technologically advanced is not always the cheapest.

We have found in the meantime, for instance, that when you don't glaze the stone and don't make it part of the curtain wall but conventionally apply it pasted on a masonry or a concrete frame, and then fill in the window, this is actually cheaper than if you do a curtain wall. So, this makes me, as an architect who is not just interested in visual aesthetic things but also interested in pushing the technological aspects of our art further, a little disappointed and disillusioned that we don't always have this perfect match of technological and aesthetic advancement.

What I think certainly makes one try very hard to make stone buildings is that the industry markets better, and I think the public has been educated through what they read in the media, what critics say, and by developers terming a stone building a quality building. It also has to do with the aspect of stone being a little bit more luxurious and having more of a feeling of quality. A lot in that industry has to do with marketing.

As for the changes occurring in my use of stone, I have become more interested in a more deliberate way, after doing many glass buildings, of doing buildings which merge glass and stone in a subtle way, and which juxtapose the stone and the glass in a more deliberate way.

Following trends has never been important to my work. It is obvious, however, that many architects are rediscovering stone as they reassess historic architectural forms. It is certainly more appropriate to see historicism translated into stone than into more plastic materials.

The infinite colors, textures and varieties of stone make it possible to create a very rich architecture. Stone has the ability to make a space seem more important and in some cases even ceremonial. It also has an ageless quality.

As for my philosophy of architecture in general, I believe that architecture is a public art not a private art. It is exposed to all and, therefore, should respond to the innate commonalties that lie within all. It all comes back to the fact that architecture is dealing with human beings. How do people respond to the environment? I try to discover the innate responses in people - the common denominator that ties us together. We are all creatures of nature, therefore, we are all indigenous to nature, so what can we learn from nature? Stone is one material from nature that has been an important element building our environment. Stone is found in the great cities of the world. We respond to the organic quality of stone as much as the legacy of stone in architecture

Stone is very much a part of my intent to bring nature indoors. Its inherent beauty is unique and not duplicated by any man-made materials. Unlike trees and water and natural light, which are also evident in may designs, stone is a usable surface material. While stone is used for its aesthetic value, it also is used for its utilitarian qualities.

The benefit of stone is that it gives a character to the design, which cannot be achieved by colors or patterns alone. When you choose stone, your design is not limited as much as it is shaped by stone.

In my own work, I see a growing understanding and consciousness of the properties and long-term value of stone, which will allow for more appropriate use and better design through enhanced craftsmanship.

If stone is used technically, as it should, it then creates a dignity and a permanence that looks like it was meant to be, as opposed to decorative appliques. Stylistically, anything that looks applied or not inherently part of the concept, can be called decoration, if it fits as a part of the whole architecture, then it would not be considered decoration. If the decoration can be removed from the sum of the parts, without affecting the image, then it is truly decoration.

Article from Arab Stone Magazine