[...] the forces that his White House set in motion could outlive his administration: The GSA appears to have adopted a modernism ban, without any authorization in place. What seemed to be a pipe dream for admirers of classical architecture back in February now looks like procurement policy at the federal agency that manages office space and needs for the U.S. government. Design is already underway in Alabama for what might be Trump’s first mandatory classical courthouse. — Bloomberg CityLab
CityLab writer Kriston Capps on the current implications of the hotly debated, but ultimately never signed, "Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again" executive order the President floated back in February.
11 Comments
I don't really mind a classical mandate -- if anything it shows how the media elites have failed to keep the public design conversation going, and the autopilot mode of many corporate architecture firms that are doing government buildings. Raise your game up. Some of the new government buildings are okay, but they aren't living up to a high standard, modern or classical. "Classical" could be interpreted broadly enough anyway, as it likely just means monumental. There are many modern architects that could easily fit the bill.
The article says this is a project by project GSA mandate, never signed by Trump. It may be interesting to see what these few projects come up with, and whether the experiment in neoclassicism is worth continuing. Either way it is important for the public to have reverence for public buildings--there are too many dumpy USPS offices where there were once grand classical buildings. If anything there needs to be a re-emphasis on matching government services with grand, monumental (classical or modern) architecture in order to reaffirm the public's respect for government. It's not a surprise that the public has lost plot -- Reagan did his job well/
Um...no..."classical" does NOT mean, nor has it ever been by necessity equated with "monumental" or monumentality. It's an absurd statement.
To be against Donald Trumps inane "Classical only" branding of all governmental buildings is hardly elite; ironically, it's the opposite. The idea of arguing for the 5 column types as somehow equivalent to an Aaron Copeland symphony is simply uninformed.
And no, "classical" cannot "be interpreted broadly enough...[that] modern architects...could easily fit the bill." This is the quality of thinking that got us a Trump in the first place.
That's enough with "Chemex" as there seems no point going further. I'm glad this article was re-posted as I missed the March 2020 posting entirely owing to the whole COVID business and switching from in-person to ZOOM teaching in mid-stream, which, by the way, is not really the same thing.
This entire Petite Trianon (as it's rightly been referred to back in March) is as tone deaf as it is hopefully still born. We can only hope all of this crap is undone once the Biden Administration is in office.
That said, for the record, the pavilion-without-an-architect looks pretty much as if it came directly from the drawing boards of McKim, Mead, and White's office of the early 20th century. There doesn't seem to be much of anything particularly "off" about the proportions of the column shafts. It's largely the choice of orders that seems a bit out of order. Doric (it actually looks Tuscan by the way) seems a bit humorless for a tennis pavilion -- hence the Corinthian capitals on the portico of Le Petite Trianon at Versailles.
The GSA appears to have adopted a modernism ban. . . .
So the preferred, in fact mandated style is NotModern. I assume variations will be accepted—NeoNotModernism, PostNotModernism, PostNeoNotModernism, etc.
It will be entertaining, possibly educational, to see how they define their standards. Better, to review their decisions for accepting one proposal and rejecting another. I'm skeptical we'll get coherence or illumination.
NeoClassical will be OK since it is NotModern. But how do you distinguish classic modern buildings from modern classical? More to the point, can, will they make this distinction?
A classical mandate is hugely subjective: SOM, which designed a federal courthouse in Los Angeles, could point to the project’s grand processional steps and limestone podium as features that draw from classical design principles, even if the whole thing is topped off by an enormous glass cube.
from the CityLab link.
Take the stripped classicism of the Cret. While this is definitely classical in spirit, it is also decidedly modern. But it is only marginally classical in reference and articulation. Simplify the cornice work, remove only a few details—the little pediment above the front door, maybe the simple capitals—and this becomes a modern building scarcely classical at all, at least in a literal sense. Would it get accepted? Would the GSA step in and say, hey Paul, put that pediment back?
And I'm guessing the mandate will be executed literally and arbitrarily, likely with questionable results. Firms that want a contract will be scratching their heads and loading their designs up with obvious details.
Everything is lost in rigid mandates—site, function, need, social and cultural context, and beauty, however many ways we define beauty. What they are doing is not a positive decision but a negative reaction—for what? Based on what?
I just noticed in the Cret that the head of the eagle lies at the apex of what would be the pediment of a temple front, and the lines formed by its head and the tops of its wings point to the bottom corners. Conceptually, the pediment is implied; now I can see it. And the little pediment on the front door points up to the eagle. This makes me smile and brings life to the building. Kind of PoMo, though, no?
Ugh.
Indeed.
.
I hope this mandate is dropped like the culture war nonsense it is. Given how varied our country is both culturally and geographically, every style should be allowed assuming they don't leave their context worse off.
Does anyone have example of new neo-classical buildings? Like... I'm honestly not familiar with anyone pulling off this sort of work...
I think much of Chipperfield's newer work (at least) gets mentioned in this vein
See for instance this by Apollo or this by Arch Digest
oh cool this again
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.