A proposal such as “Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again” potentially reduces an entire architectural philosophy to a caricature. Arbitrarily pasting columns and arches on a building so it looks like a Parthenon-Colosseum hybrid is pretentious — and doesn’t make the building classical. Designing classical buildings for the modern age is a complex process, requiring knowledge of construction, world architectural history and urbanism, as well as aesthetic judgment. — Washington Post
Writing in The Washington Post, Michael Lykoudis, Dean of the classical architecture-focused School of Architecture at the University of Notre Dame, writes that the planned "Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again" executive order fills him with "great dismay."
Evoking the work of 15th century architect Leon Battista Alberti, Lykoudis explains that "as our students can attest, classical architecture is not a style; it is a dedication to principles of community, resilience and beauty."
"Buildings are not meant to be mere objects," Lykoudis adds, "but should contribute to the fabric of the city, promoting a healthy and nurturing community."
The measure has been opposed by a wide variety of advocacy groups, including the American Institute of Architects (AIA), the National Organization of Minority Architects (NOMA), the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA).
34 Comments
The fact that potentially sympathetic experts disagree with a policy has never stopped Trump, and probably emboldens him.
But this is nice piece with nuanced thought.
Kudos to Lykoudis. He also wrote...
“I do not support the idea of a federally mandated architecture. I support the idea that the federal government should be truly inclusive rather than exclusive of architectural directions in its building programs,” ... “Also while architecture can be appropriated by political factions and used (and misused) for political ends, it is not inherently political. Architecture transcends politics."
That is the humane view of architecture, one that put's the perspective of the spectator above anything else, a direct product of the humanist tradition.
best take thus far. Speaks with authority and expertise lacking in pop media, and a lightness and ease that explains the values of classical architecture are much deeper than columns and pediments
I like this guy, too. I like what he says. And I like the buildings. The extent they are neoclassical—they are distant from just about everything that came before, years ago—should lead to serious discussion about the style. It won't.
The problem is, I don't think anybody will listen to him, left or right. It's where we are now.
Both the desire to get some general rules for designing government (at least ‘federal’) architecture and to the particular choice of style, as well as the reaction to that government move, are understandable, though the rationale for both deserve some discussion.
In traditional societies, it was almost a matter of course that buildings were designed in a way that made them recognizable as to their role or function or purpose: A house (for living in) was a house, distinct from the barn or the stable or the storehouse, a church, a temple or synagogue or mosque were recognizable as what they were even to children, a store was a store, and a government building was a government building — a city hall, a ruler’s palace. Even in societies changed by the industrial revolution, a factory or a railway station were recognizable to the citizens as what they were and what they were for.
For government buildings, the design or style carried additional expectations: what kind of government, what kind of societal order did they represent? At one time, a ruler would live in a fortress — ostensibly for protection from exterior enemies, but as a convenient side-effect also protection from the ruler’s own subjects who didn’t like the taxes and what he used them for, or other edicts. More ‘democratic’ or ‘republican’ governance systems favored more ‘civil’ connotations, say, like a ‘marketplace of ideas’ for how to run their lives; the issue of designing suitable places that told the governance folks that they were ‘servants of the people’ but also told visitors how great their cities or nations were, became a delicate challenge. This also affected the design of residences of oligarchs who ‘ran’ government from their own palaces, but wished to insist on the right to do so by their wealth and erudition and good taste. (1) Their administrations — bureaucracies — could no longer use the fortress symbols to keep the citizenry in line, but architects helped the rulers to find other means to do that; the sheer size and complexity of rule-based designs of administrative institutions were intimidating, sorry ‘inspiring’ enough?
That clarity and comprehensibility of buildings has been lost in recent architecture: We see many kinds of clients, governmental and commercial and in-between institutions trying to impress the public and each other by means of size and novelty supplied by architectural creativity with their buildings. This is leading to a ‘diversity’ of the public visual environment that many find refreshing and interesting but others are beginning to resent as disturbing and boring, since as a whole it expresses a different kind of uninspiring uniformity of common desire to impress: by means of size (who’s got the tallest building and most brilliant plumage?) of ‘different’ signature architecture. Coming across as more puerile than ‘inspiring’: is that who we are as a society?
So the question of whether at least some clear distinction between governmental architecture and other buildings should be re-established, is not an entirely meaningless one. But insisting that the issue should be the sole domain of architects to decide rather than the government is also missing just that point: what is it that architecture tells us about who we — and our government — are, or ought to be? Just big and impressively ‘imperial’ — like the Roman or other empires that ended up collapsing under their own weight and corruption that all the marble couldn’t hide? The ‘inspiration’ being mainly the same kind of puerile awe of its sheer power but also — and not just incidentally: fear? What is the kind of architecture that would inspire us to cooperate, through our government, towards a more ‘perfect’ just, free, creative but kind and peaceful society?
Part of the problem is that we do not have a good forum for the discussion of these issues. The government itself, in most countries, has lost the standing of being that forum, for various reasons. The forms of ‘classical’ architecture won’t bring it back — they have too easily been adopted by commercial and other building clients: the example of an insane asylum with a classical portico, an old standard joke in architecture schools that advocated more modern styles, is beginning to give us a new chilling feeling… So where: Books? Movies? TV? Ah: Twitter? Is that who we are? Just asking…
(1) I have written about this issue (under the heading of the role of ‘occasion’ and ‘image’ in the built environment) in some articles and book; using the example of government architecture in Renaissance Florence, (where we can see buildings showing the dramatic evolution of the image of government in close proximity) and about the forum for discussion of public policy. I consider the design and organization of that ‘forum’ one of the urgent challenges of our time.
+++
Thanks
what the government needs is to support the cause of ARCHITECTURE which is all of the things he describes (community, resilience, beauty) with a study of the best design past and present, not some narrow program of caricatured faux-classicism
Bingo.
I'll second that.
I’d agree with that, but I’m curious. Do you believe that it’s possible to design classical buildings today that are not “faux classicism”?
"Classicism" is by nature faux or fake as it is nostalgic. It becomes a paradox, whereas the Renaissance was fake in a way as it was looking backwards (Gothic was contemporary) but most agree today that looking back pre modernism is educational but not instructive for what to build now.
If they mean classicism as in pre-modern or pre-computer, there are many architects that think hand-drawing, hand-models, and even hand-building are key to a humanist process. Think that's the most accurate critique, but doesn't preclude a style.
The critique against soulless glass CAD skyscrapers of 1990-20 is valid, but they aren't educated enough to make them. Architecture profession has already done some self-critique, but the media and politics haven't caught up yet.
Chemex, I take my endorsement back. Writing 'faux classicism' when you meant classicism. I design classical buildings among others and have never held a nostalgic thought, rather I get excited about the prospect of my design making someone smile. By your standard, all neo-modernism is nostalgic. You don't seem to understand the creative impulse which has nothing to do with nostalgia, regardless of style.
The classical language of architecture is just that, a language. It's not inherently nostalgic, any more than English is nostalgic because it was spoken in the 18th century.
I would agree that classical modernism is now nostalgia, but if you sit down with knowledge of every movement and decide that you are going to build something that looks EXACTLY like the acropolis, I’m going to think you are aiming at kitsch. This is different from deciding that a colonial style home is best for you, as there are forms there that work well in the present. It’s a proven formula. Nostalgia isn’t necessarily bad, but just a reference for the past instead of experimentation not knowing where it will go—the organic style of design that comes from modern design.
Even the Renaissance (while nostalgic) did invent something slightly new with their study of the past. Postmodernism wasn’t nostalgic but new in its use of classical parts. Missing the nuance there.... even those that try to be nostalgic end up inventing new things, and those that try to be progressive end up repeating others
I.e. the paradox
Even when traditional practitioners tell you flat out there's no nostalgia involved and give you analogous examples, you persist with this modernist fiction. Amazing...
You are calling yourself a “traditional practitioner” ... what exactly do you think “tradition” means.... I was being sympathetic with so-called traditionalists but you keep proving me wrong
I'm just an architect who works in any style, traditional to modernist. It's modernists who call me a traditionalist, but whatever. The point is you insist on saying things are nostalgic when those who do the work you speak of say nothing about nostalgia. And I don't need your sympathy, unless you think people who work in non-modernist historic styles need some, in which case...
Style is not relavent; what counts is talent.
Besides, what is style — the most classic buildings I’ve admired are Saaranin’s TWA terminal and his St Louis Gateway Arch and Harrison’s Rockefeller Plaza — none of which has a classic detail; all of which are symetrical about an axis, comfortable to binocular human beings because that is the most efficient way to process the information.
I think most consider Raymond Hood to have been the team leader and lead architect for Rockefeller Center.
I’d consider Rock Center to have been inspired by classical tectonics. Its “deep structure” is classical. And it has abundant art and fine detail to address the human scale. One of my favorite places.
Oops; my bad — Raymond Hood also designed my favorite skyscraper: Chicago Tribune Tower.— also classic symmetry but with a gothic flavor/
The most interesting thing about Rock is that a tiny hole in the ground overpowers the eighty story tower next to it.
I may have missed something, is anyone reacting to anything in fact. That is, has there been any release for comment, or is this just on anticipation of a shoe dropping. If the latter, can we just get back to reality and wait for the shoe to hit the floor. Everything is without merit until there is something to put through the crisis center of design.
It's generally a good idea to check the weather before stepping outside, neh?
Did you read the draft? Here is a link
Donald has an entire executive staff of thousands. Not everyone there is a Donald. Some write, and I guess they have written the draft.
A rant in not a critique of the order. Please post your particular issues with the draft if you can. I would like to read them.
Better links:
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/facilities-construction/2020/02/draft-eo-to-make-federal-buildings-beautiful-again-causes-stir-with-current-former-officials/
Link from the preceding to the actual draft
https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/19700169/Draft_of_Trump_White_House_Executive_Order_on_Federal_Buildings.pdf
Page 2 of the draft states: ...This preference does not exclude experimentation with new, alternative styles...
I know of a number of government buildings that fail my test as buildings that have or will survive many years. Mine I believe are "classic". I imagine you have a list also of duds and classics. Is there any merit in establishing guidelines for a certain class of buildings? I did not see in the draft a set of handcuffs per se. Reasonable guidelines in the hands of talented architects actually help. The proposed draft is getting vetted. So it may not itself stand the test of time. No guidance and particularly lots of money tend to result in products that will not endure for many years. Shall we name a few in NYC? Some are classic and still stand. Others are gone and not missed. I offer the following two adjacent examples. They have troubled Boston for years. Despite all the fine words by critics, they are tough to experience. What do you think? These are products of the 60s.
City Hall in Boston
https://www.boston.com/news/history/2018/07/25/boston-city-hall-brutalism
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_Federal_Building
These building have never been loved by Boston and to me seem just imposed on the cityscape.
Grand Central Station in NYC - it's dark cramped and old looking. Also the Washington Monument, which is useless but expensive and the stone colors are inconsistent. I think we can all have a list of personal hates, compile it, and get all the buildings torn down. Then there will be plenty of work for everyone!
We all are confusing style with substance — architecture is not the stuff that decorates the space, it is the space itself —the decoration is only there as an aid to enhance the feeling of the space — with the advent of modern style the basic RULE of architecture — that binocular human beings assign an axis to every space and to every piece of stuff defining that space, because that is the most efficient and safest way to process the information and that keeping the axis in balance will insure good architecture as a basis of human development — was the baby thrown out with the bathwater of decoration by the bah-house movement — whole generations, including myself, were left to flounder on the beach of bulls heat, learning such nonsense as how does the wall want to feel — all leading to: if it is strange, it is published = lack of real talent rises to the top = knee jerk reaction by a developer as President to make our federal buildings at least good enough to market — as one who learned by doing (Trump Tower is a very interesting breakthrough on many levels once you remove the glitz) POTUS instinctively knows that classic style has some basis in feel-good architecture, but also confusing substance with style — I applaud the classic directive because I know from my long practice that you cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs — it has been sixty years since Ed Stone’s US Embassy in India or forty years since Maya Lin’’s Viet Nam Memorial; both classic designs of symmetry with nary a classic detail — what’s not to like?
Here is a JFK building associated with Boston. Maybe the solution is to have more I.M. Pei architects.
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.