Last year, Trump and his "make federal buildings beautiful again" executive order sent shockwaves across the architecture community. Trump had strong aversions towards modern architecture calling these buildings "ugly" and "uninspiring." Since Archinect's initial coverage on the classical architecture mandate back in February 2020, we've kept a close eye on the White House's news and how the architecture community would respond.
Since January 20th, 2021, President Biden has been swift in revoking and undoing many of Trump's blunders while in office. Before he left, Trump made a great effort to sign and pass his executive order making classical architecture the "preferred and default style" for all updated and future federal buildings. However, late Wednesday evening on February 24th, President Biden was keen on rescinding that order.
With the order now revoked, what happens next? NPR's Elizabeth Blair reminds us in her report that along with Trump's classical architecture mandate, he also appointed a handful of individuals to help carry out his plans. Modern architecture critic and current U.S. Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) Chair and president of the National Civic Art Society (NCAS), Justin Shubow shared with NPR, "our federal architecture has been dismal for decades, and has been designed in modernist styles that do not represent what ordinary Americans actually want."
To expand on Blair's coverage Phillip Kennicott, art and architecture critic of the Washington Post, commented on the CFA's "all-white, all-male, and almost entirely mediocre" board. He expressed the need for Biden to "move quickly" to replace the current CFA members. He called for the President to replace its current members with "a diverse body of professionals, including women and people of color, who bring a wide and spirited range of aesthetic viewpoints to the commission's monthly meetings."
However, Shubow shared with NPR that the NCAS "intend[s] to work with the Biden administration to implement change that will build a truly democratic architecture" adding that "historically our advice is always needed."
It's only a matter of time before responses from architecture institutions trickle in. The AIA's CEO Robert Ivy shared his thoughts with Politico, "though we are appalled with the administration's decision to move forward with the design mandate, we are happy the order isn't as far-reaching as previously thought." Earlier today AIA 2021 President Peter Exley shares, "By overturning this order, the Biden Administration has restored communities with the freedom of design choice that is essential to designing federal buildings that best serve the public. This is fundamental to an architect’s process and to achieving the highest quality buildings possible. We look forward to continuing to work with the Administration towards developing policies that create healthy, just and equitable communities."
49 Comments
Yes, what happens to the dozens of federal buildings that have been fully designed-- some of them now in construction-- since that order was signed almost ten weeks ago?
Buildings get designed, ten weeks after a signature? Wow! Tear them down then.
They probably get finished as designed. Most of the contracts are likely renovations of existing buildings and the now revoked executive order probably had little to no impact.
I was being facetious. The chance that even a single project had any design work performed in the last ten weeks (holidays, pandemic, political hubbub) is virtually nil. So the 'what now?' question is moot from a practical standpoint. The impact on the larger discourse (as Gary notes below) is the relevant part, since this has kicked up quite the fuss.
In 10 weeks there probably was about 300 million worth of contracts issued if not more. the GSA (General Services Administration) has a huge construction portfolio going on all the time. This includes the courthouses, laboratories at the CDC, national parks, military bases, military housing, The VA, embassies, the office space for every federal agency, federal prisons, air traffic control facilities, and customs/border patrol facilities. These are not all new buildings but likely re roofing, ADA bathrooms and interior realignment for office space. A new major building, such as the FBI HQ replacement takes an act of congress, but maintenance and additions on existing buildings are covered in the GSA budget or the budget under each federal department with the GSA administering the contracts. A lot of design work was started and finished within 10 weeks. If you ever worked on GSA projects you will know how fast they can go sometimes.
Thanks for that insight, Peter, in all seriousness. Considering how long it takes to get a call answered at the IRS or a package mailed at the Post Office on a typical day, I'm impressed. My larger point-- that the production of federal buildings and their architectural style has not yet undergone an epochal shift-- is probably still safe, though.
Part of the MAAA movement (Make America America Again).
Biden didn't waste any time here. Trump, however, sat on his executive order for over a year, until after the election, likely because he didn't care that much about it and was looking for something to do when he wasn't ranting about the "stolen" election.
His order could have been part of the "cancel culture" campaign. That it wasn't suggests that most people don't know or care about architecture that much.
This could be a good time for a full, meaningful discussion about public architecture and national identity, and I'd like to hear it. I'd also be curious to see who the players are now and learn what they represent.
i was wondering if the original order was part of the reason why AIA took the column graphic out of their logo last year...
What happens? This is what happens.
Yeah, 'cause comparing a US federal courthouse to a German military museum is apples to apples especially without any context.
Narrator: " It isn't what happens"
That's beautiful, imo, love that wedge!
I'm with Rando, if all Federal buildings were intervened in this fashion we'd be better off.
Looks like a giant alien ninja star hit the Reichstag. Take that, Earthlings!
Is that Libeskind? It's awful. I don't think it's appropriate for that to happen. But I also don't think it's appropriate for a style to be required for public buildings.
Why is their a battleship crashing though that building?
Jokes aside, reminds me very much of the Toronto museum he did. And not in a good way. I think they both really just muck up what was nice about the original buildings.
His Toronto building is absolutely horrendous, in every single way. Who designs a museum with no walls at 90* to the floor? Libeskind, that's who.
Remember, children, "Ornament is a crime!" Especially in Dresden.
There's something wrong with you.
No offence to my fellow trad lovers but good riddance. Democracies don't need an official art, even if we get our ass kicked in most schools.
Imagine Patrimetric going to give a lecture at Notre Dame SOA. I imagine that not going over well.
it makes it easier to love the original works as they are if they aren't 'owned' by the bad guys
Is this what classicists mean by human scaled architecture?
Also the extremely obvious fact that no one is *preventing* trad buildings from being designed. Conservatives & reactionaries, in my experience, seem to have a tough time distinguishing the difference between being allowed to do something and being forced to do it.
Try designing a trad building in most Architecture Schools. Most professors are 'reactionary' against anything traditional. That's why you don't see more trad buildings in practice, because so few people can do them well, and they are mostly self taught.
From what I hear CUA and Notre Dame have pretty good "traditional" programs, or at least a space within them for more "traditional" aesthetic. But that aside, I think design school teaches fundamentals over style. Style is easy to develop (or mimic) later, but the real base understanding of space & its arrangements is why you see so much abstraction at the university level. If you're more than 5 years out of uni and all you can design is what you were taught in uni I'd say you're a shitty architect.
And to your second point. you don't see more "trad" buildings in practice because that level of craft is difficult and expensive *to build*. It's difficult to design, but so is anything of quality. Again, no one is explicitly preventing anyone from designing traditional buildings.
Two schools out of how many, 500? And why do we even have 'mod' or 'trad' schools, why not just architecture schools? As for teaching 'fundamentals' over style, did learning classicism harm the early modernists? If you think one can't learn fundamentals while learning to produce a harmoniously beautiful structure, you might want to take another look at the history of architecture.
As to your second point, craft has nothing to do with a well composed building. Craft started to disappear back in the 19th century. Are all those lovely old buildings in NYC, Chicago, and San Francisco shitty because they employed machine made parts? The vast majority of schools prevent students from designing traditional buildings and everybody knows it. Take a look at this shot from Harvard's GDS, the Harvard of architecture schools. You see fundamentals on that desk?
Just ask'n, like every student does when they hear the Zeitgeist bullshit
That said, Trump's a fascist. Liberal democracies don't need culture shoved down their throats.
"Just ask'n'" is lazy trolling. If you want to convince anyone, do more than "just ask."
It seems like we've lost the thread here. My only point remains that nothing is *prohibiting* trad / classical construction.
I feel like this always devolves into a Pro-Trad / Anti-Trad debate and that's not the point. The debate is whether the government should mandate one and only one style. Regardless of the style, that's bad policy, and it's good that this EO is revoked.
I agree there's nothing prohibiting a trad building today but why to we see so few of them outside the residential market where the public has a direct say in what they want? If most architect's can't do decent trad, you're not going to see much of it. So I'll ask again, why aren't the schools who prepare us? Same reason, the prof's don't know how to teach it cause they where told the same thing they teach, which is trad arch is not legitimate. Consequently, a lot of work get's done by hacks because there's a market for trad so schools pretend that world doesn't exist and only the glossy magazines do.
"the residential market where the public has a direct say in what they want" I dunno about that.
hey, this one should count as 100
I read this a couple of weeks ago and it somewhat sums up my feelings on the 'style' debate. It glosses over a lot and, in my opinion, is a little hamfisted with some of the more nuanced cultural concepts, but at it's core it's correct in explaining how little of this is on the shoulders of actual architects:
https://www.theschooloflife.com/thebookoflife/why-is-the-modern-world-so-ugly/
We'll have different experiences of course, but mine is that most folks could care less about design polemics. I work for a builder and deal with specific people and people in the abstract all day long. I've done modernist work, and even though it's not my first choice for home, I've enjoyed doing it for others because it makes them happy. Architecture is a service and an art, something they don't tell you in school. Here's a poll from the 1930's about people's style choice, that said, it's clear modernism does better in those climates for which it's more suited.
Interesting article btw.
I appreciate the removal of Trump's executive order on this matter. If I was serving as an 'architect' for the federal government working on such a project, I would prefer to design with the immediate local context in mind. Architecture style principle of a design that fits into the context. If there isn't a coherent singular style in the context then maybe a little bit of finely done ecclectic modern that isn't too jokey or comical but classy. In an area where the building has more glass box, international style architecture, then perhaps a little more in that flare. If we're talking about New Orleans area in a historic district area or adjacent to, then perhaps we look to the appropriate style while still addressing the core function.
I wouldn't pick style before I have the program together and a fair sense of the local context. I don't support a blanket policy that is too restrictive that doesn't give the architect any flexibility of what to design and the voice of local stakeholders.
The right praises classical architecture
Trump takes advantage
Left elites, silent about any design issues, takes bait and bashes classical architecture as racist.
The right wins another culture war.
Repeat into infinity.
This is the false narrative the right invented, sure.
Chemex has it 100% right. The culture wars where invented by the right, but the left plays into it instead of calling it out. There's a direct line from Renaissance Humanism to liberal democracy and the science which shows all modern humans are indeed created equal when they emerged out of Africa about 60,000 years ago. Just cause one group got gunpowder or whatever first doesn't change that fact whatever some racist says.
I agree insofar as the left* let's the right* set the narrative, always opting to defend rather than set their own tone. The right* knows this, and sets a tone in bad-faith for which there is no chance of defense.
*right/left are ill-defined and subjective terms, so take this with a grain of salt.
On one side you have a group of people who will bend over backwards to avoid being perceived as flawed or insensitive, and on the other side you have a group of people who will stop at nothing to accuse the other side of flaws and insensitivities. So, yeah it gets a little tired.
Someone will need to negotiate not only the substantial, significant, and increasing ethnic diversity in this country but also its paralyzing division (74 million Trump voters), which likely will haunt us for years if not decades. I'm skeptical either the hip designers or the classical apologists can do this. Public architecture needs to be based on a common understanding and a belief in core values, and architects need to embrace these and design for them. I'm not hearing this discussion on either side.
I agree, but the reason is that both sides think moderates are dupes. Truth is every other art accepts stylistic pluralism as an expression of modern societies except architecture schools.
"..exit polls conducted by Edison Research show President Trump won at least 18 percent of black men this year, up from 13 percent in 2016, and 8 percent of black women, doubling his percentage from four years ago. The president also increased his support among Latino Americans. According to Edison Research, he captured 36 percent of Latino men and 32 percent of Latino women. These votes helped Trump secure victories in Texas and Florida. Trump received historic levels of black support not seen since 1960, and record-breaking Latino support suggests people value policy over rhetoric." NY Post And Trump achieved this despite non-stop propaganda from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, The NY Times, the Washington Post, and hundreds of smaller papers owned by the media giants. Trump had the support of part of FOX and part of the Wall Street Journal.
When 18% and 36% are "record breaking" and "historic levels" you've got bigger fish to fry than a silly little culture war. Congrats to Trump, I guess, for duping another few percentage points out of the ol' moral panic playbook, but in the end he still lost the election (by a lot, I might add)
Might want to give this old standard a re-read
If Trump gained amongst minorities, that means whites abandoned him in 'Numbers no one has ever seen!' Kinda strange for someone who's...proud of his boys.
So 82% of black men, and 92% of black women, did not vote for him. I see this crap all the time - "ooh, he DOUBLED his votes from black women (etc)." It's misleading at best.
Those 74 Million Trump followers who can renounce their citizenship and get the f--- out because they don't believe in any principles especially the Constitution because they don't believe in equality for all... liberty and justice for all. They are not in allegiance to the United States so they can all get the f--- out like the "Misfits" that were sent back to British Empire (then, the British colonies in what today is called Canada).
There is the national border, misfits. Don't let the border gates hit y'all in the butts.
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.