With only 29 days of his White House mandate remaining, President Trump revisited a topic that had previously stoked sharp criticism from the architecture community and signed an executive order today that makes classical architecture the preferred style for federal buildings.
The order opens with a lengthy rundown of American federal architecture, from its beginnings under Washington and Jefferson, through its perceived problems with Modernism since the 1950s, all the way to calling out a certain contemporary "San Francisco Federal Building" as one of the "ugliest structures" in the city.
"Classical and other traditional architecture, as practiced both historically and by today’s architects, have proven their ability to meet these design criteria and to more than satisfy today’s functional, technical, and sustainable needs," the order transitions to the policy section. "Their use should be encouraged instead of discouraged."
The language switches to a practical tone in this paragraph: "Applicable Federal public buildings should uplift and beautify public spaces, inspire the human spirit, ennoble the United States, and command respect from the general public. They should also be visually identifiable as civic buildings and, as appropriate, respect regional architectural heritage. Architecture — with particular regard for traditional and classical architecture — that meets the criteria set forth in this subsection is the preferred architecture for applicable Federal public buildings."
"In the District of Columbia, classical architecture shall be the preferred and default architecture for Federal public buildings absent exceptional factors necessitating another kind of architecture," essentially bans modernist architecture in D.C.
The order calls for the establishment of the "President’s Council on Improving Federal Civic Architecture" to recommend updates to the General Services Administration's architectural guidelines. The council is to be chaired by a President-designated member of the Commission of Fine Arts.
Critical backlash to the signing of this highly controversial order is expected to be swift.
When an early draft was floated in February this year, the architecture community voiced its unified opposition to this executive style dictate promptly with public statements from the AIA, The National Trust for Historic Preservation, NOMA, ASLA, The Architecture Lobby, and leading academics.
"Architects are committed to honoring our past as well as reflecting our future progress, protecting the freedom of thought and expression that are essential to democracy," read the response from the American Institute of Architects on February 4.
Among the Archinect audience, the issue has been hotly debated since then.
"I hope this mandate is dropped like the culture war nonsense it is," wrote Archinect user Thayer-D. "Given how varied our country is both culturally and geographically, every style should be allowed assuming they don't leave their context worse off."
"No im all for it," commented JeffreyShulnburg. "Lets see what the federal government says when they see the cost of marble, granite and limestone panels compared to metal panel, brick and glass. I bet that new rule goes away REAL fast when the GSA sees the costs." mrrightwilson joined the snarky tone with "I can see it now- styrofoam dentals, cornices and column caps. Stucco-faced Type V-B wood stud walls in the shape of columns... beautiful..."
User ThePeopleWantBeauty came to the defense of the proposed order, writing: "I can hear the cries now that the general public's opinion on architecture is one that is uneducated, and therefore we as architects as 'elevated' thinkers have the necessary task of giving enlightened design. Its a great pitch, but one that is founded in an architects pursuit to be a star. [...] Architecture is for the 'people,' so give the 'people' what they want."
We will be closely monitoring new public responses from today's development.
Revisit Architect's coverage of the public discussion so far via the "Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again" tag.
38 Comments
Repeating myself from earlier this year: All creations are a product of the time in which they were created - most of all buildings. A government policy that requires buildings built in the present to reflect the languages and values of the past is a painfully blunt metaphor for an empire fraught with anxiety over its decline.
Well said.
Didn't everyone agree in the late 20th century that zeitgeist is a myth? Or is modernist thought making a comeboack?
There's a difference between being influenced by the time in which we live (present as physical and mental stimuli which affects us) and zeitgeist (present as a mystical force). One is a reality, the other is fantasy.
tduds: You speak in a language that dates back many, many centuries. Why do you reflect the languages of the past?
Your comment reminded me of a quote: "Architecture is the unbribable witness of history, because we cannot speak of a large building without recognizing in it the witness of an era, their culture, their society, their intentions." - Octavio Paz
The language I speak would be barely comprehensible to speakers of "the same language" just 3 or 4 centuries ago. It didn't even exist in its current form until the enlightenment. The accent with which I speak it and the spellings that are currently considered "correct" would be similarly confusing for people a scant 150 years back. Nevermind the slang, jargon, humor and so on that my still-living grandfather considers "not English."
All things evolve with time, language might be one of the *more* fluid examples. Next.
"classical architecture" and "regional architectural heritage" are meaningless phrases. Paul Cret designed many stripped classical - modern buildings in DC, and Kahn is as classical as any. So is Mies. And so on. "Regional" architecture may well be modern.
The buildings they are ham-handedly trying to critique aren't really the modern buildings of the past or present, but "brutalist" buildings of the 60s that also have classical principles embedded. Many of these buildings just need a cleaning, paint job, minor fixes and some nice lighting.
That's what happens when cultural crusaders with no understanding of Architectural history or style try to control a conversation they've never actually been a part of.
They do understand cynical media manipulation very well. people watching FoxNews will hear this and say, I hate all of these strip malls, why don't they make it like they used to--those nice old classical buildings downtown. Trumpists know full well Federal buildings, better than most, have nothing to do with this. But you don't see the NYTimes or CNN caring much at all about architecture so it's another culture war win for the GOP
Blaming "the liberals" for the failures of the neoliberals.
The text specifically refers to Thom Mayne’s Federal Building in SF.
Cue all of the people who love trad architecture tying themselves into knots explaining how this is good when in other threads they rant and roar about government overreach and control...
I can and will not read your posts, my dude.
"Ignore" option is your friend, Sneaky!
I have jla on ignore, I was reminding him. Thanks for the reminder, though. :D
The Federal Government is the client. Are they not entitled to set the criteria for architecture they commission?
Dumb question, and not the issue here. Whether they CAN isn't a good question. Whether they SHOULD is.
The federal government is (well, should be) ultimately accountable to the people. Are we not entitled to criticize the criteria they set? Like Sneaky said - maybe they *can*, but my stance is that it's bad. I'm not saying they can't, so the correct counter-argument would be to explain why its *good*. So, feel free to do that if you think that way.
Why shouldn’t they set the aesthetic criteria for architecture they commission?
“The federal government is (well, should be) ultimately accountable to the people. “
https://www.architecturalrecord.com/articles/14842-new-data-shows-americans-prefer-classical-architecture-for-federal-buildings
Why is it good?
"The survey was commissioned by the National Civic Art Society (NCAS), a nonprofit organization that is devoted to promoting classical architecture for Federal buildings and to banishing modern and contemporary design"
Maybe I'm paranoid but it seems like their views on this issue might be a tad skewed.
One survey does not good policy make.
I'd be interested in comparisons of "traditional" and "contemporary" buildings built in the same year. It's unfair to say "well people like Monticello" as if Monticello could be built in 2021 and not look like absolute Disneyeqsue dreck.
lol Jefferson was unlicensed lol
All Architects were unlicensed because there was no such thing as architectural license. It was something fabricated more than a century later.
'Additionally, in the District of Columbia, classic rotary type telephones shall be the preferred platform and default technology for federally issued mobile devices and phones absent exceptional factors necessitating another kind of architecture.'
'Federal mobile devices should uplift and beautify public
officials, inspire the human spirit, ennoble the United States, and command respect from the general public.'
'A forthcoming mandate will be issued pursuant to federally issued vehicles and civic transportation, pending settlement of the debate over utilizing horse-drawn vehicles or the breakthrough technology of the combustion engine powered Model-T.'
Do you believe there a category difference between communication devices, transportation machines, and civic architecture?
Make America Beautiful Again...as our Founding Fathers would have
No thanks.
Modern architecture was also rejected under Hitler. It was considered un-German. Many architects of the modernist Bauhaus school had to flee the country and later influenced the "mid century modernism" now so cherished in the US. Also most skyscrapers are built according to modernist Bauhaus principles.
When you consider skyscrapers as improper architecture for the USA you have to ask yourself when America was truly great because when your plan to make it great again entails reverting it to as a state of 100 years ago or earlier some people might disagree with you.
whatever. who gives a shit about federal buildings
I believe that it is normal for such buildings
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.