In a seven-page draft executive order obtained by the Chicago Sun-Times, Trump declares that the federal government since the 1950s has “largely stopped building beautiful buildings that the American people want to look at or work in.”
Future federal government buildings, he decrees, should look like those of ancient Rome, Greece and Europe.
“Classical architectural style shall be the preferred and default style,” he states.
— The Chicago Sun Times
The Chicago Sun-Times has published the draft text of President Donald Trump’s proposed “Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again” executive order that seeks to impose a classically-inspired architectural style on the nation’s federal buildings.
The American Institute of Architects (AIA) has voiced opposition to the measure.
An entertaining read, wonderfully obtuse and superficial. The definitions of brutalist and "deconstructivist" styles read like agitprop. "Beautiful" has become a loaded yet meaningless word.
All the buildings praised are at least 80 years old (I think—someone correct me). The only recent building held up for our approval is Beeby's Tuscaloosa Federal Building and Courthouse:
Can anyone defend this? It just looks stillborn—derivative, unoriginal, out of touch, lifeless. And kind of cute. The simplifications destroy any expression the building might muster.
I'm reading Jencks' The New Paradigm, which puts Beeby (and just about everybody else the last decades) in the ranks of Postmodernists. The building feels like an ironic take on a replica of a replica of a traditional building, the irony so diffuse any point that might be made is lost.
I'm debating if I want to know what figures grace the pediments.
All 18 Comments
Didn't the guy with the mustache take a keen interest in the government architecture too? Man, are we in trouble.
fyi notre dame architecture: an erection lasting longer than four hours is medically dangerous
Make Classicism Great Again!
An entertaining read, wonderfully obtuse and superficial. The definitions of brutalist and "deconstructivist" styles read like agitprop. "Beautiful" has become a loaded yet meaningless word.
All the buildings praised are at least 80 years old (I think—someone correct me). The only recent building held up for our approval is Beeby's Tuscaloosa Federal Building and Courthouse:
Can anyone defend this? It just looks stillborn—derivative, unoriginal, out of touch, lifeless. And kind of cute. The simplifications destroy any expression the building might muster.
I'm reading Jencks' The New Paradigm, which puts Beeby (and just about everybody else the last decades) in the ranks of Postmodernists. The building feels like an ironic take on a replica of a replica of a traditional building, the irony so diffuse any point that might be made is lost.
I'm debating if I want to know what figures grace the pediments.
What kind of defense do you thinking is warranted, and does this building need a defense? I'm not sure what you're looking for.
The Beeby photo looks like someone downloaded a bad sketchup model after searching for "museum" and plunked it into a rendering software package.
I'm serious. Why is it beautiful and an appropriate expression of our democracy? It was held up as an example, using that argument. From the text: “With a limited number of exceptions, such as the Tuscaloosa Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, the Federal government has largely stopped building beautiful buildings that the American people want to look at or work in.” I'd also be curious to see budgets compared between it and whatever you put above.
I think those questions are a matter of opinion, which in a democracy need to be respected. But thee is a tradition of
Classicism representing our country like it or not. I don’t think that makes it official, but it’s like questioning a Thanksgiving Turkey. I don’t question it, but prefer a good carbonara to celebrate what I’m thankful for. Sadly, Trump corrupts everything he touches, so we’re all in for a divisive ride.
The question isn't whether people should have neoclassical buildings. If an area wants it, they'll get it. And now the style is the default, or will be. But this building sets an example for others to follow. Architects and critics, especially the neoclassical adherents, need to step up. They need to define what makes the style vital, and it's more than taking on details and columns. Is this, in fact, a successful neoclassical interpretation? I'm skeptical, needless to say. It's not hard to imagine getting stuck with neoclassical crap.
"opinion, which in a democracy need to be respected" (SIC)
*SNORTLE*
Gary, just put your criticisms on the other foot. What do you think the default style of government buildings and academia has been since WW2? Modernism. Any why will this building be any more an example to follow than any other? I understand you don't like it, fine. I find it a bit stiff myself, but again, why does anyone need to 'explain' what makes a style 'vital'? Some people like stiff buildings some effervescent, and everything in between..as many types as there are personality types, regardless of style. Will you ask others if the building I posted is a successful neomodernist interpretation? Of course not. Then you give the game up by saying "it's not hard to imagine getting stuck with neoclassical crap" as in everything neoclassical. Again, you've every right not to like neoclassicism without explaining yourself. What I'm saying is if you really want to claim to be open minded, one has to acknowledge that this has more to do with personal taste and not politics. Your blanket statement about neoclassicism is as unforgiving as the Trump statement. Politics is a game which has nothing to do with how buildings are experienced by the average person on the street. Imagine classicism having the monopoly on academia that modernism enjoys today and on this site...you can't, which speaks for itself.
"why does anyone need to 'explain' what makes a style 'vital'?"
Do go on, Thayer. DO GO ON.
Still not answering my question. I'm not defending modernism as the default style, which I suspect is not quite the case anyway. I'm also not trashing neoclassical buildings of the past. I would like to think serious students and practitioners of architecture can at least understand, even appreciate any style of architecture at any time. And every period has its bombs. Why? They need to define—and debate—essential principles of integration, expression, proportions, etc. Of course they will disagree, but at least principles will be stated, explained, and defended. The Beeby has been held up as a standard. Is it a good one? Why? What is beautiful about it? Is it a successful modern interpretation of neoclassicism? Or a throwback? Or a mishmash? I want to learn something here.
The other question is why neoclassicism today represents our "self-governing ideal." The executive order gives us nothing.
"Why is it beautiful and an appropriate expression of our democracy?" I never said it was. I'm agnostic concerning style, simply have my own taste. And I didn't hold Beeby up as a standard, if you'd been following my line of argument. But how can one learn to like something that is only experienced in person? You might be able to appreciate it, but do you teach people to like something aesthetic when they will never have access to your or my learned discourse? This is the great disconnect of academia with the general population. BTW, what do "principles of integration, expression, proportions, ... stated, explained, and defended" matter if every period has its bombs? (Which I agree with) Thank you for maintaining a civil tone, something lacking here from time to time, but if you would be so kind as to reciprocate with answer to my questions, I will look forward to learning something from you about how one reasons their way to what is a matter of taste.
The executive order, not you, said it was an appropriate expression of democracy! And this is the issue. Someone has to explain and defend this vital question. Else why build public buildings in America? They have to be based on some understanding. I'm not arguing with you. I'm questioning the order, which is only a knee jerk response, without reflection.
Fair enough. I think the order is more of Don the Con’s divisive hustle. Look at Trump tower after all, dime a dozen
modernism. But can you explain why modernism is the only style allowed in 99% of academia? Forget de jure, I’m talking de facto? Inquiring minds want to know.
I give up. Why on earth are you asking me this? I'm talking about the executive order.
You weren't just talking about the executive order, which we all know is another piece of Trump trash. See examples of Donny's McModernism below. I'm asking because you extended it to the larger world of architecture with statements like this. "to design it this way now feels like a throwback, even a regression, to a style that no longer speaks to us." and "Are there any recent examples of successful neoclassical architecture, say the last 25 years or so?" We all know architectural academia's strangle hold on style and increasingly political views is illiberal, against the very ideals they're supposed to represent. And surely you know this is kind of hypocrisy that helps fue l the Trumpists who are shitting all over the liberal ideals that made our country truly great. Let's not feed those flames simply over a matter of taste.
the "modern" default for what's been built since WWII is what we're hired to build. Your stylistic preference for trying to design dated buildings is uncommon.
"the modern default for what's been built since WWII is what we're hired to build." Sure, it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that architects are indoctrinated into believing your bit of sophistry. Contemporary architects working in traditional styles are self taught, despite an education that discourages them. I guess they're being hired by a bunch of uncommon people. What are you afraid of?
Do you ever tire of mounting a defense by yourself? You chastise others in nearly every post about being more open and accepting and how everyone else is sticking to their positions out of fear. Do you ever look into a mirror?
Why do you fear traditional architecture being given the same legitimacy as modernist styles? It's that simple. If not, we have no argument, because I will never try to convince you to like something you don't, and I'll be the first to admit there are many close minded classicists. So again, what is there to fear about allowing for a plurality of expression in architecture schools?
Why do you put words in my mouth? Why do you keep making ironic statements like "because I will never try to convince you to like something you don't" when that's pretty much your modus operandi in every news article about this topic? You ARE the "close minded classicist(s)" (SIC).
I was taught the history of (mostly Western) architecture in school. I was challenged to design according to my own principles, but based on SOMETHING. Not blindly following the past, not copy and pasting ideas, but instead using my brain. If you read my posts, you'll see that, while I may rail against classicism, it's not due to some allegiance to a competing style, but instead it's against the blind faith in ANY style. Bad buildings exist in every style, and bad faith actors need to be called out. You'll find me complaining about classicist buildings, modernist buildings, amorphous buildings, whatever. You'll also find me complementing classicist buildings, modernist buildings, amorphous buildings, whatever. Can you say the same with a straight face?
Among other things, it just feels lifeless on the wings:
And what are we supposed to make of the sides?
You don’t have to like it, but how about justifying so many dehumanizing modernist bunkers. Living in glass houses...
Whataboutism is great. It makes it so easy to point out the motes while ignoring the planks.
How delicious; a developer president ordering buildings to feel good, just as he would his architect when he was a developer; what he is obviously doing is simply installing the Beaux-Arts rule that binocular human beings assign an axis to every space and every piece of stuff that defines that space and that aligning those axis in balance is the ONLY way to create places that feel good — nothing to do with classic style except that classic style seems to use axis naturally — Saaranins TWA terminal is as classic and modern as you can get; it follows the rule simply and naturally. It is the only RULE of architecture and the only one not taught universally, of course (duh).
The old Escambia County Courthouse (Pensacola, Florida) and the New Escambia County Courthouse
Those awnings. Gross.
Do they serve calzones?
Pensacola can be unbearably hot and humid in the summer, with July being the worst month. I believe the original building had awnings to block direct sunlight while letting in difused light. They still serve the same function today while cutting down air conditioning costs. Look at it as 'form following function'.
For what it's worth, I like the old courthouse. It is reserved yet involved and interesting, fresh and relaxed and graceful. And I like the awnings, which give it a humanizing and contemporary touch. The new one is a clunky, boxy mess. Worse, it has lost its freshness. It hasn't worn well at all.
Picture 1
Picture 2
Different Picture 1
Different Picture 2
LOOK GUYS I'M PROVING MY POINT WITHOUT WORDS OR THOUGHTS
You missed the point entirely.
New rules by the guy who set the standard for architectural design.
The Beeby Federal building was a $47.8 million dollar project. I don't know if that's the final cost, and I'm sure some adjutant needs to be made for region—cheaper labor, etc. How does that compare with comparable federal buildings in the country? I have no idea.
I've worked on 20 mil projects with significantly less square footage. 48 seems reasonable for a federal building intended to last decades.
Is that, then, a substantial investment? Most of the federal crap we've seen was built on the fly, with a tight budget, and wasn't designed to last. The point here being if we want significant buildings, we need to pay for them, regardless of style. Hard to believe neoclassical isn't more expensive.
I assume everyone will see this soon:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0...
A NY Times editorial about the executive order. They show some beautiful buildings.
Here is a great place for the debate:
In February 2019, the agency announced a design change just before the start of construction on a federal courthouse in Greenville, S.C. Instead of a 10-story brick tower, designed to resemble other buildings in the downtown area, the government is now constructing a 10-story concrete tower with classical lines.
Best pictures I could find. The first is a conservative building, restrained yet detailed and warm and human. And it fits in. Why isn't there classical influence here?
But the second? And why is this a superior "neoclassical" interpretation?
They both look equally classical in composition and tectonics.
(Last shot, Thayer-D)
Saying the Nashville Symphony Center (from the other post) stylistically is no different from work 70-80 years earlier, i.e. is a copy, is a neutral and, I heavily suspect, accurate statement. That I find it dead, I suppose, is a subjective perception, but I'm scarcely alone here. Styles do advance. You only have to look at the history of the classical style in all its variations. At any rate, this building will never be found in history of architecture books as it represents nothing in the history of American architecture that hasn't been said before.
For that matter, I'm not fond of the buildings 70-80 years ago during the campaign to complete L'Enfant's plan in Washington. I find them ponderous and imposing. I'm not alone here, either. Kostof, in his history, faults "the elephantine scale commanded by a government apparatus that had grown beyond all prior expectation." "Fustian piles of masonry larded with muscle bound statuary and pious maxims" is his take, and he is referring to the Supreme Court, Jefferson Memorial, National Gallery, etc. That work was not designed by Nazis and did not express fascist ideas. However it was, as Kostof notes, quite similar to buildings that went up in totalitarian governments during this time, Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and Stalin's Russia. This should give pause for reflection.
But Kostof's other point, the growth of government, presents the real challenge: how do we bring our large government back to the human scale and not impose or intimidate? Several modern buildings have attempted and succeeded in doing just that. The Moakley Courthouse is a wonderful building, large yet intimate and warm, monumental yet graceful. This is not an argument for modernism per se, a term so vast it is meaningless anyway, but for buildings that adhere to principles and that work. Other neoclassical buildings are quite nice, and I have no objection to repeating them.
The Nashville building is not an advance of the style. That's a neutral statement as well. I am genuinely curious: is a vital, contemporary neoclassical building possible, one that will invigorate the style and engage us? I can't imagine this, but would like to see examples to prove me wrong. It's why I asked.
And I'm skeptical that neoclassicism represents our people and beliefs and government, or does so any more. Just saying we built certain buildings 80+ years ago is not a compelling argument. It isn't an argument at all. But again, that's a question that needs full thought, which we aren't getting. The executive order and administration, however, haven't opened the question. They are closing it.
From the start, the great classical architecture has been inspired not just by a style but a spirit and set of ideals that give the buildings life and relevance. Kostof again:
"To venerate the immortals and to be a member of a polis—these were the covenants of Greek humanity. Nothing that humans achieved or aspired to could be thought of outside this dual covenant. In the gods resided ancient obligations to the forces of nature and the appeasement that was their due. And in the frame of the polis, the citizen found the fulfillment of human life—the realization of moral worth and philosophic, political, and artistic identity."
And then have all this put on the human scale. A building should have life:
"The principal of empathy is central to the understanding of Greek architecture. It comes about intangibly, through the proportional interlocking of the members, which evoke the proportional relationship of a standing human."
Columns themselves are a subtle and lively metaphor for the human body.
"In the end, this humanly inspired reasonableness of built form is what distinguishes the the experience of a Greek temple from the crushing gigantism of Egyptian structures."
Without the spirit, without the ideas, the later interpretations are lifeless and nearly meaningless. And here we have a problem. We (most of us) don't believe in Greek gods anymore. Philosophy has been challenged and undergone revolution—that's part of the process. Then what do we believe? This is a difficult problem that won't take quick answers. Our moral worth, our political and philosophical identity—these are matters that aren't being discussed, or not discussed well, and we're paying for it. They are vital to our architecture and to our lives. And the most vital question is what best represents our democracy. This is a serious question that needs full, open discussion.
But who do you listen to? Labelling all "academics" as out-of-touch freaks is committing the same fallacy the right is committing. There are all kinds of academics, many worth listening to. I value Kostof for his deep appreciation of architecture—all architecture, from all times—and his strong understanding of culture and ideas. Also he writes beautifully. One could learn to design from his prose.
If not academics, then who? Architects? Which ones?
Or should we take an opinion poll? Crate a reality tv show "So You Want to Be an Architect"?
The executive order needs to be taken seriously because it will have effects on our visual landscape. But you won't find a single word that defines beauty or democracy. It is not a statement of principles. It is a reactive piece that picks targets and ridicules them. Like Trump. Most we need to see what the GSA come up with. If the Beeby and the revised Greenville courthouse represent their tastes, we're in for hard times.
The executive order reminds me of George Donero's attacks on modern art, years ago, Dondero was a McCarthy sympathizer during the red scare:
Dondero was most notable for mounting an attack on modern art, which he claimed to be inspired by Communism. He asserted that "Cubism aims to destroy by designed disorder... Dadaism aims to destroy by ridicule... Abstractionism aims to destroy by the creation of brainstorms".[4] In 1952, Dondero went on to tell Congress that modern art was, in fact, a conspiracy by Moscow to spread communism in the United States.[5] This speech won him the International Fine Arts Council's Gold Medal of Honor for "dedicated service to American Art."[6] When art critic Emily Genauer (future winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Criticism) interviewed Dondero in the mid-1950s he stated "modern art is Communistic because it is distorted and ugly, because it does not glorify our beautiful country, our cheerful and smiling people, our material progress. Art which does not glorify our beautiful country in plain simple terms that everyone can understand breeds dissatisfaction. It is therefore opposed to our government and those who promote it are our enemies."[7] When Genauer pointed out the resemblance between his views and those of the Stalinist Communists he despised, Dondero was so enraged that he arranged to have her fired from her job at the New York Herald Tribune.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I'll leave you with the last shot , or shots. Thanks for being civil.
I'll let you have the last word. The last one before this one, of course.
"create a reality tv show"
"what the GSA comes up with"
This is my big question. Who is actually making these design decisions and why?
Related: Why did GSA’s Chief Architect and Director of the Design Excellence Program, David Insinga, resign? I'm not seeing anything about this.
Isn't it odd there's no coverage of this? I haven't seen any. This was noted in the AR piece about the executive order, suggesting the two are related.
Actually, I want to backtrack. There could be value in what I'm calling copies—recreations of past styles without redefinition, with essential and inevitable modernizations that don't hamper the overall the design. Look ahead another 80 years—they may be some of our best reminders of that style, of our past.
IF:
They are well made, well designed, and faithful to the original. This can be said about the Nashville symphony building. But it's not a federal building. (I'm still not interested in it and still think the Beeby is funky.)
AND:
They are sensitive to the democratic spirit and our past.
AND:
The GSA investigates the full range of neoclassical design in this country. We have beautiful examples, better than the ones held before us.
AND:
It commissions top practitioners who have made serious study and have the sensitivity and skills.
This will take money and commitment. We have no reason to believe the GSA is serious or that any of these conditions will be met. Look at what has happened to the State Department. The Department of Education. Any department. It's why I'm interested in the Greenville courthouse reversal, above. The redesign is a massive, imposing, sterile block. Why was this chosen? Incompetence? Indifference? A desire to impose, without sensitivity for the republic or to design? I want to see who is making these decisions and why.
Liberal/conservative, modern/traditional—these words, the way they are used now, are practically meaningless, cover other motives and agendas, and only serve to drive further the wedge that is splitting us apart. Essential points about design, culture, and government have been dismissed or simply are not understood. What these are is not an easy question at all. They need serious thought and debate, which we aren't getting.
There are many advantages to the neoclassical style—familiarity, continuity, memory, coherence, and so much more. That still doesn't mean neoclassical should be the default style.
And I'm still skeptical classical styles can be revitalized. They don't scale well and have been pushed hard the last century. We need to find another language.
It's the wrong debate question.......
In an era of fiscal oblivion, and Cities run amok in socio-political
upheaval, should the government be sinking vast sums of money just to
rebuilt it’s office space for it’s bureaucracy. NO. This is another
“Megaproject”
the biggest circumstance among megaprojects, the ultimate lesson is,
DON’T DO them. Let the private sector do it, let the govt rent space in
it. The reality is the government has PLENTY of office space that by GSA’s terrible auditing and management, doesn’t even know they own. The Fed doesn’t need anymore godamn buildings. They need a massive overhaul of their thought process and a massive cutting of their spending habits. I’m all for classicism return to major cities I’m not particularly enticed by what that entails namely spending huge sums of your tax money. But now, it’s clear cities are a trainwreck of leftists policies…….New York and San Francisco are suffering fleeing residents, property collapse and rent failure. The era of urban fiscal calamity can NO longer be hidden from the limelight. When government who runs your city, have a political motivation to pander to people who’re dysfunctional, poorly behaved, engage in lewd or self destructive acts, their policies do nothing but foster more of the above……..before they threatened and enacted a policy of arresting those who simply wanted to go to church or open their businesses again; stood idly by while out of city folks burnt it to the ground.
If someone has grandiose plans to make something with their own money and resources on the line……..who cares if it fails. When government has the same ambitions, Watch your wallet. Truly, there’s but one lesson you should learn about megaprojects, and that is: for the most part; Don’t do them. This is especially true for governments. Everything they build costs more no matter what architecture style you pick. By this point in their careers, Calatrava, Gehry, etc are at the end of their lives; they’re old or close to retiring NEVER the less; they’re still notorious for buildings that are extremely costly to build and maintain or were built for political asskissing as opposed to anything economically
relevant or supportive. And they fu** over the taxpayer the most because alot of the buildings they’ve designed at the peak of their careers are often public ones at taxpayer expense like museums, libraries, government buildings. Is there any evidence classical buildings with the same floor space cost less then the “Minimalist”
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.