Of the two bills before Congress, one has flowery language about the need to “uplift and beautify,” “inspire the human spirit,” “ennoble the United States” and “command respect from the general public.” The other codifies old guidance that directs federal builders to “reflect the regional architectural traditions,” to emphasize “the work of living American artists” and to not have bureaucrats force an official style on the folks who do the designing. — Politico
The duel between the Democrats’ updated ‘Democracy in Design’ (S.366) and the Republican-backed ‘Beautifying Federal Civic Architecture Act’ (H.R.3627) that was introduced in May recently got the attention of a (paywalled) Wall Street Journal op-ed along its way to spurring action on the part of the Government Accountability Office, which last month recommended the GSA begin to require community inputs in the design process for new federal buildings.
The former AIA-backed bill would codify the 1962 Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture that calls for the disclusion of “official” styles. Its opposite, perhaps intentionally, preferences styles whose historic context can be deemed problematic given its undeniable connection to wealthy landowners in the Antebellum South who used architecture to present themselves as the anointed heirs of classical Greek and Roman civilizations.
Politico reports, "One familiar tendency, though, is that both sides are claiming the mantle of democracy — the GOP bill by saying bureaucrats ought to defer to popular tastes, the Democratic-led measure by opposing federal mandates and speaking up for regional quirks (which may be one reason it has a bit of bipartisan support).
Given the current climate, it’s unlikely either measure becomes law. [Justin] Shubow, citing polling data about public views on architecture, says he’s eager to have Democrats sign onto the Banks and Rubio bills. But it appears that federal building design is now just as polarized as anything else. Titus’ bill enshrining the 1962 design document, which was originally introduced in response to Trump’s order, will be a similarly tough sell this time around, too."
In the end, both may be puffery, as each is currently before respective House and Senate committees with a veto likely meeting the Republican plan should it ever pass the Democrat-controlled chamber.
41 Comments
Anything Shubow wants, I don’t. That guy’s a jerk.
Shubow would be sponsoring the Republican bill from the House as it's basically an attempt at legislating what he and Donald Trump tried to do while Trump was President. I wouldn't be surprised Shubow had anything to do with the House Republican sponsored bill
This game of deeming architectural styles “problematic” because of their demonstrable ties to certain historic societal groups is, well….problematic. Shall we deem International Style Modernism off limits because it was used almost exclusively by Soviet Russia in its domination of Eastern Europe in the 50’s and 60’s? Or traditional Asian architectures because of the brutality of Imperial Japan or Pol Pot? Where does this end?
From the article: “Its opposite, perhaps intentionally, preferences styles whose historic context can be deemed problematic given its undeniable connection to wealthy landowners in the Antebellum South who used architecture to present themselves as the anointed heirs of classical Greek and Roman civilizations.”
Josh's comment questions not the classical style itself but those who appropriated it for their own ends, suggesting, by implication, Shubow et al. are doing the same thing today. The full historical context is raised and questioned, as not all used columns in the past to promote democracy.
The architecture of oppression.
“Those who appropriated it for their own ends” ^^^^
Shall we presume that those that build buildings referencing International Style Modernism are sympathizing with totalitarians?
architecture is a form of expression. The government should have no say whatsoever as to what form of expression is acceptable or not. All public government building designs should be open competition, and should be voted on by the public in that locale.
Shubow just baits us. There is nothing inherently beautiful about classically styled buildings. Some are beautiful, and beautiful in their own ways, which should be appreciated, on their terms. Shubow never does this and I doubt can. Some of them are adequate. Let us preserve them. Some are dogs.
But they are the dominant buildings in Washington for its most important functions—the White House, the Capitol, etc.—and will be for some time to come. Let us accept and respect them, at any rate not shit on them.
Yet when you walk down the mall and look at the other buildings, the Smithsonian Castle (I love this building), the Hirshhorn, the National Gallery, the Pei addition, the Air and Space Museum, the American Indian Museum, and so on, you would have to say that we have evolved and that the major theme of Washington is eclecticism.
“The founding fathers consciously chose the classical style for the core buildings of government,” [Shubow] adds. “They saw that classical architecture was timeless and time honored. And they wished to harken back to democratic Athens and republican Rome."
As we have seen in the Supreme Court, "originalists" have adopted an interpretation of the past that is narrow and forced, wholly suspect, wholly based on contemporary views—theirs—but out of joint with contemporary realities.
Besides, what other options did the founders have at the time? I secretly suspect if they were around today they would have been at heart modernists of some stripe.
Gary - Is there something inherently beautiful about anything?
Those pushing this bill are looking for another battle in their divisive culture wars. My advice to them is ironically what made the founding fathers so brilliant, appeal to our common human nature to help unite us rather than dividing us with dog whistles about traditional values etc.
We think when we see a survey with numbers it tells us some kind of objective truth. This is rarely true. That Shubow poll is a crock. People, I assume some kind of abstract representative sample, were shown two buildings, one traditional, one modern, without context, without any explanation, and asked which they preferred. Most people will always go with what they know. And most people aren't familiar with architecture at all in any depth and have had little to no exposure to many recent works. But they have seen classical buildings all their lives, on their money, in films, etc.
I'm curious what people who live in the area think of those modern buildings, for example SF inhabitants of the Mayne federal building. At any rate tastes take time to develop and depend on exposure and experience, not a quick glance.
https://archinect.com/news/article/150018137/ten-years-after-opening-morphosis-san-francisco-federal-building-is-not-a-crowd-pleaser
I'm sure Mayne overhyped this, but according to the article the objections are that the plaza has not developed and his building hasn't inspired the new construction surrounding. This is not a fault of the style. A Beaux-Arts revival would have suffered similar fate.
Gary, those surveys are accurate and they show a significant percentage of people liking modernism. No need to cast shame on the same empirical method that explains global warming or any other aspect of our wellbeing. In the case of Mayne's building, it's not the style as much as the architect's skill. It looks like a dystopian film set and not one of the cool ones. That said, the Plaza is another over programed piece of dung, and with such pleasant background buildings! What a privelage it must be to get these kind of commisions and have so much disregard for the public.
I’m not saying these surveys are sending us objective truth, but there is still something to be learned. Admittedly, these polls are difficult to design perfectly. But broadly speaking, I think it’s safe to say that the general public finds something about traditional and classical architecture preferable to modernist architecture. There’s much confirmation of this. The question of “why?” Is a project for academia and the profession. Aren’t you interested in the answer?
Gary-
What you are laying out is another version of “the public is too (choose one or more: stupid, uninformed, naive, foolish, uneducated) to appreciate architecture, so we must ignore their taste and give them the good stuff, for their own good.
If architecture is to be lovable by the public, why would it need to be explained? I think you are wrong to dismiss the poll. It tells us something important about what Americans respond to in architecture. Are you not the least bit curious about their preferences? Perhaps their is something to be learned there, something that might inform your work, so that it might appeal to a broader swath of the public than other avant-garde architects.
In my opinion, "architectural styles" should not be dictated. In fact, such buildings in local historic districts should be designed in a manner compliant with the local rules and regulations when designing a new building or altering an existing building in and near historic districts which would be compliant in principle with "Section 106" (National Historic Preservation Act). However, this doesn't mean the building has to be historic but reflect site and context and other principles. Dictating a specific style is inappropriate. The Architect of the building should have some discretion. They can promulgate guidelines that serves to aid but is not compulsory. The federal government can say as the "client" like they may want the building to be classy and respectful yet also be suitable to location, context, etc. The architect, then will have the duty to come up with a solution. The building must obviously serve its purpose.
TIQM—
I said the poll was a crock, not the people surveyed. Here it is:
https://www.civicart.org/americans-preferred-architecture-for-federal-buildings
Some 2000 randomly selected people were asked this question:
“Which of these two buildings would you prefer for a U.S. courthouse or federal office building?”
then were shown seven pairs of buildings, one modern, one neoclassical—scroll down to see them.
And that's it.
They certainly show recognition and appreciation of the traditional buildings, against which I can't argue. I like several of them myself but am indifferent to others and feel the same about the modern. But we have no idea why they selected one over the other, why one style might be more appropriate for a federal building, or whether their views might change over time, exposure, and use. Nor do we have any sense of why one style might be more appropriate in a particular place. Context is ignored. I especially like both buildings in pair 6, but they have different settings. The Bostetter courthouse might not work at all in Newport News or even be possible.
The Snyder U.S. Courthouse and Custom House in Louisville will surprise, maybe shock most from a quick glance. Time will tell. Tastes change. And change. And change again. I find it has a strong, expressive monumental cast that, in fact, goes back ages.
At any rate, we learn nothing from this sketchy survey, yet it is presented as objective fact and used to support the bill.
And most of the traditional buildings look to be a century or so old or older (I didn't check). They come from a different age. The modern buildings also represent a different age, some of whose styles have passed as well. Yet the bill is written for today, and contemporary solutions, traditional or modern, need to factor in our lives today. Also I want to see contemporary traditional solutions—I don't know what is possible now, or what works best on a budget. Modernism itself has been around for a while itself, and it has many branches. Lumping all the styles under a general heading confuses the discussion.
So much more has to be factored in here, which really is the point.
I generally trust people. I trust them more when they put some thought into their decisions. I tend to be suspicious of casual group polls which claim to speak for them.
The Politico article also mentions the America's Favorite Architecture survey:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Favorite_Architecture
What on earth are we to make of this? AIA members selected 248 buildings, which were ranked by the public in another poll. They liked all kinds of buildings—neoclassical, modern, even postmodern, and still others. The objection here is the same as with Shubow's poll: you aren't going to learn much from a quick glance at one picture.
Not the Snyder Courthouse but the Hammond Federal Courthouse in Hammond, Indiana—I mixed up the names of Pair 7.
If you haven't tired of this conversation, here's a good response to the original executive order:
https://www.tuscaloosanews.com/story/special/2020/02/12/why-so-many-architects-are-angered-by-making-federal-buildings-beautiful-again/1723648007/
Kai Gutschow, Carnegie Mellon
Because aesthetics and symbolism is so central to classical architecture, the buildings – almost by definition – are more costly and less energy efficient than so-called "high-performance buildings," which focus on cost-effectiveness, safety, sustainability and accessibility, in addition to aesthetics. Through organizations such as the National Institute of Building Sciences and their Whole Building Design Guide, the federal government has, in recent years, been working to produce advanced buildings that set standards for the industry and the world.
Architect Phineas Harper also makes a subtle but important point that today's love of classical and traditional architecture often masks a fondness toward traditional European culture – and, by extension, an aversion to "the other." He notes that classicism, traditional architecture and anti-modernist rhetoric frequently disguise xenophobic and violent impulses.
We're going to see these or similar issues again. . . .
Another appropriation of the type and style:
Try that in a small town
See how far ya make it down the road
Around here, we take care of our own
You cross that line, it won't take long
For you to find out, I recommend you don't
Try that in a small town
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1_RKu-ESCY
Masking a fondness for Fascism?
This building represents something bad but also goddam is it beautiful.
I like it too, Donna. It's an office building now, apparently.
My point in posting it is that it seems silly to me to say that an entire aesthetic language of architecture must be tainted because it was employed by bad people sometime in the past.
I hear that. But I also feel that the United States’ use of classical architecture shows us striving for an egalitarian ideal that we have not yet met. Somehow we still haven’t become the country we intended to become. so we have to keep experimenting and trying, not just falling back on a symbol of something we haven’t actually achieved.
What sort of architecture is appropriate, then, for a country that aspires to an egalitarian ideal, but has fallen short?
At this point any architecture needs to be built appropriately for climate change, that is the most important task. And since I think of the United States as a country where any kid can grow up to be a rocket scientist, I personally think contemporary architecture is what we should be building.
The Tuscaloosa Federal Building pictured in Gary’s post above is LEED Gold. There’s nothing inherently energy efficient about modernist architecture. If anything, generally speaking traditional architecture makes it easier to achieve energy efficiency. Few curtain walls, less glass and associated heat transfer to mitigate.
Why does contemporary imply curtain wall? Contemporary is not as hidebound as that. Not sure that classical buildings are all that good as reference for modern life, speaking only for myself. Even an 18th century barn doesn't work very well compared to today's needs, never mind something as complicated as a courthouse. The scale of activity for one thing is entirely different.
"Architect Phineas Harper also makes a subtle but important point that today's love of classical and traditional architecture often masks a
fondness toward traditional European culture – and, by extension, an
aversion to "the other." He notes that classicism, traditional
architecture and anti-modernist rhetoric frequently disguise xenophobic
and violent impulses."
What evidence does Architect Phineas Harper offer to support his assertions?
Actually, to enter this discussion I'd like to see options for classically inflected buildings now. Paul Cret represented his times, a century ago, and his place in the continuum of the development of the style. We need the same for our time. Otherwise we're just copying the past without relevance, thought, or inspiration. First, however, we need a definition of what constitutes a classical building.
Shubow (linked in my above comment) provides a list of GSA Design Excellence Buildings, around 2000-2020, which categorizes them as Classical/Traditional or not:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59bfe5dbf14aa1b6bbb12cd0/t/5f710558b66cd43eed78a7b7/1601242456897/list+of+GSA+Design+Excellence+Buildings.pdf
And only a handful are considered classical/traditional. (I'm not clear if Shubow made this determination, but he obviously approves.)
The Spottswood and Merhige U.S. Courthouse in Richmond, Va. is not considered classical/traditional, while
the Robert C. Byrd United States Courthouse and Federal Building in Beckley, WVA. is considered classical/traditional. Both by RAMSA. (I think both are fine.)
Why isn't the first classical or at least traditional? I see references and abstract elements. Why does the second pass the test? The classification seems arbitrary. And we have to assume that all the others not considered classical/traditional will not pass muster.
Shubow also cites another casual study for the "preferred" style of courthouses:
https://patterns.architexturez.net/doc/az-cf-206835
The higher scoring buildings had:
This does not mean a courthouse must have a neo-classical design. Instead, it suggests that a design should incorporate the four neo-classical properties of columns, pediments (extended forward), white color, and symmetry. [?????]
Instead of "preferred" he should have said "familiar." So what? Of course they're familiar. They've been around for a long time—and what other options did they see that might have been familiar?
My concern is that with such a measure "classical" is defined so narrowly as to be severely restrictive, suffocating, really, for architecture, for us. The deciders will have a checklist from which they will not stray. No pediment? No approval. There's the risk that anything that passes the formula gets approved, regardless of the quality of the design. Surely the definition will have to be opened up and informed by a broader understanding of architecture.
And it fits in with a pattern of other measures that have been proposed lately that are narrow and inflexible (and wrongheaded, with dubious motivation), that choke the life from the republic.
Spottswood and Merhige U.S. Courthouse and the Robert C. Byrd U.S. Courthouse and Federal Building - I would say are Classical/Traditional inspired postmodern. Both of them. However, the first one would be more postmodern expressive while the latter was a little more classical/traditionalist in form keeping more closely with the squares and rectangular form. More subtle in the postmodern expressiveness. In either case, they were still postmodern and yet relatively muted and serious in expression than the more comical expressions that exist in the spectrum of postmodernism expression in architecture. This is in the spectrum of postmodernism that I like and would support for this kind of building and purpose. Laws and Courts are serious subject matter and places, so they should be serious and respectful.
White is less important but I think elements could be. They should be white or natural "earth tones", or that of brick or stone natural colors where possible. The alternative color to white, being black.... suitable for trims and ways of "breaking up" the mass so it doesn't feel like it is one monolithic color mass. Imagine if the architect used a darker (dark grey/basalt) stone veneer on the ground floor level on that Robert C. Byrd building in the photo above. This might have been something I might have employed if I was designing the building. Different feel, sure and different approach but that's differences between artists take but still a nice design in its feel. I can't speak to the rest of its structural design and approach as I am not looking at the building's plans.
Answering the question above—
At some point it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to separate the message from the messenger, especially if the messenger is dictating narrow terms. Four of the only six GSA Design Excellence Buildings (linked in my previous comment) that Shubow says are classical/traditional are in Alabama and are strictly, literally so, though not especially esthetically so. It's hard not to see his proposal and the bill as more than an attempt to give legitimacy to behavior that is anything but democratic. Look at Alabama's disenfranchisement of Black voters by gerrymandering, and stay tuned. It's a way of saying they are right and setting themselves against everyone else in opposition, who are wrong and corrupt. It's the same message in Jason Aldean's song, above. There was a lynching before that courthouse, btw, where he stands.
Build it this way, accept our message—or else. This desire is a corruption of our traditions, and, again, we're seeing similar behavior elsewhere, everywhere.
I don't think anyone has said federal buildings shouldn't be classical. I'd like to see traditions referenced and kept alive, all of them, including classicism. But it will take some flexibility and imagination. Stern makes a nice classification of different types of modern classical architecture that is useful. But in a country as diverse as ours, we need to maintain variety.
If it ever was, I don't think the temple front is an appropriate figure for courts now. A temple implies sacrifice, the sacred, and the Sacred, that which must be accepted by faith and not questioned, none fitting for what should be reasoned, dispassionate but caring justice. This in a country where there are those who believe the Constitution is divinely inspired (the founders would cringe) and Christian nationalism is on the rise.
There's another problem. Columns and pediments don't scale up—ten stories is a push—yet our federal buildings have become larger. The SF federal building is 20 or so stories. What are the classical options there?
And the nation is well over twice as large as it was in the 1920s and 30s, when many of the classical structures were built. We are more diverse than ever. The government has accordingly grown larger, as have its federal structures. Somehow it has to maintain presence without being exclusive, overpowering, overwhelming.
Federal buildings and courthouses are important. They vary the landscape and represent the US government to the nation, giving us another perspective on our lives. They can give us a picture of who we are collectively, who we might want to be. More and more, the image cannot be restrictive and coercive.
The Mobile courthouse, above, looks like a throne. Or maybe a toilet.
For me, it is not the architectural style. Dictating a specific style is kind of bordering (in spirit) on First Amendment violation of the freedom of artistic expression of the architect. Athough, one can argue that the federal government would be the client. True but a public-sector client not private sector client. Private sector clients can dictate the style, it is their personal money. The Government doesn't have personal money. The government and the money of the government and the properties of the government is collective property of the citizens... the public... the people.... as a collective unit not that of the individuals for public purpose so in that sense, the stakeholders are the citizens... even the architects may be (especially an Architect that is a U.S. citizen). Therefore, architecture must reflect the input of the public in regards to federal buildings especially the local context and the people there.
Our large American cities are filled with skyscraping classical buildings.
guess it is always possible to do something like this...
The top image is the rebuilt Kabuki theater in Tokyo, below is the most recent version of the same (built in post war Japan) before it was torn down and replaced. Both images from (wikipedia)
The building is new, a (kind of) replica built in 2013 by kengo Kuma, with a very tall tower grafted on the back and a roof garden at the junction between horizontal and vertical. Kuma is not afraid of history, even the overt copying and pasting kind, which is certainly interesting, possibly strange, depending on your point of view. Money, culture, and meaning have all changed since the first kabuki theatre was built on this site in the late 19th century (out of wood).
In the interim the building was destroyed and rebuilt 4 times, from fire, earthquake and war. In the 1920s Japanese architects built the theatre from concrete because they wanted to be modern. Now we do other things, like tack on towers ;-)
The upshot is that culture is alive, and maybe the main critique of the US gov debate is that it is trying to argue that culture should not be allowed to grow or change. That is frankly scary.
Coda, maybe:
I doubt it will happen, but it's not hard to imagine in today's environment the inflexible and rabid right latching on to fundamentalist classicism in confrontational ways. If Trump or another reactionary gets elected next term, count on another executive order.
I don't trust people en masse, especially when they have been manipulated into righteousness and anger.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.