Trump and his devotees in government are the absolute last people who should be shaping the policy for federal building design.
Trump should leave well enough alone.
— Chicago Sun-Times
Lee Bey recently took his critical eye to the new Trump Administration’s mandate to restore Classicism in federal buildings, arguing it would "wind up saddling us (and the countries where U.S. embassies will be built) with ungainly new buildings struggling to mimic those of ancient Rome or 18th century America."
Considering Trump's local history, the derision of contemporary design is a bit hypocritical, Bey argues. Carol Ross Barney told him: "It’s way out of the mainstream of architectural thought. And it reduces architecture to decoration. It reduces its value. I just think it’s so obvious to me, working every day on public buildings or public spaces, that this doesn’t even get to understanding the power of design or the importance of public spaces in buildings."
The AIA published its own critique of the president's "concerning" beatitude last Thursday.
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
28 Comments
Another missed opportunity, by Lee Bey here, to educate the public about legitimate architecture critique I've heard for ages within the profession.
Critical Regionalists have always slammed contemporary architecture as anti-human and designed for the eye and magazine covers rather than human experience. Carol Ross Barney's work seems to be within that mold, but she and Bey have to play dumb politics for the public here.
The 'mandate' itself seems reasonable: the GSA has "60 days to submit to him a list of design recommendations that *respect* regional, traditional, and classical architectural heritage in order to uplift and beautify public spaces and ennoble the United States." Why is respecting regional/classical architecture bad?
A smart GSA could easily come up with a list of requirements that are reasonable: context sensitivity, local materials, climate sensitive (natural light, ventilation makes better design), human-scale material/sensory experience, landscape considerations, monumental, limit glass.
It's no wonder that simple architecture concepts cannot be explained when the face of the profession is Rex Heuermann.
reason, context and climate sensitivity? from Trump? Please, none of these concepts meld with trump's idiotic policies or the cunts that support him.
If the profession continues to scoff at the plebes who demand better architecture, and refuse to explain intelligently a middle way between good traditional buildings and magazine eye candy it will cease to exist and will deserve it.
Yall deserve the criticism because of who you elected. No need for intelligent debate when the proponents are clueless trump supporters.
I'm actually with Eamez here.
NS - there's no reason to abandon hope or not try just because Trump is an idiot - even less for you since you are not even from here and just projecting your doomerism onto those of us who have to deal with this executive order or design buildings in this environment.
Why don't you worry about your own rapidly deterioriating political climate and the consistently awful architecture constructed in canadia instead?
We’re doing rather well, excellent in fact compared to our silly southern neighbour. If you guys don’t want the justified criticism, the. Work on electing respectable people. USA USA USA, pew pew pew.
AA - Trump is an idiot and he’s s placing other idiots in charge. Think about this for one second- Trump is a narcissistic liar who can’t handle criticism. In his last administration many people worked hard to keep him from literally destroying the world. Look up the nuclear football and the
If you’re not concerned about this then you’re a fool.
Sorry , typing fast. Look up the nuclear football and the procedures to use nuclear weapons by the president. Trump can literally use them whenever he wants without any checks or balances. In Trumps last administration he talked about using nukes three times. The people around him talked him down. Now look who Trump has surrounded himself with. We all should be concerned.
The USA began literally as a Rome LARP, and the 18th century is the foundation of our nation and culture. So it's not inappropriate to look to those periods for some cultural continuity and inspiration in public architecture.
As for the "mainstream of architectural thought," I pointed out in the other thread that this is part of the problem. Mainstream architectural thought has become very far removed from mainstream American culture. Hence the reaction from the public along these lines.
but why save "american culture"? It's certainly not something that needs to be celebrated lately.
There is a strong desire by many people to restore American culture to its prior greatness. I mean, just look at what's going on with the political realignment in this country. The last 50 years of disintegration and decline is being systematically rejected. Now, trying to do that via historicism and focusing on the rearview mirror is not going to be productive or sustainable moving forward. But our current culture and mainstream architectural thought hasn't presented any compelling alternatives just yet. That's on us to figure out instead of defending and recycling the same trash over and over again (ref. the disastrously ugly Morphosis SF Federal Building linked in the next comment thread below).
"The last 50 years of disintegration and decline is being systematically rejected." Yet people around the world sacrifice their lives every day for the opportunity to live in this great country. That don't make no sense.
gwharton
Please define 'American Culture'.
Please define "mainstream of architectural thought"
OA: somebody at some point convinced you that constantly saying "define!" and "source!" is somehow rhetorically or argumentatively effective instead of making you look petulant, foolish, and unserious. You might want to rethink that.
"many people are saying" I've heard that from someone before....prior greatness, sure, for the country club boys maybe?
gwharton wrote
"OA: somebody at some point convinced you that constantly saying "define!" and "source!" is somehow rhetorically or argumentatively effective instead of making you look petulant, foolish, and unserious. You might want to rethink that."
That's a nice way of saying you don't have any idea what your views are on the subject.
When I don't know something I'll ask questions. When someone makes a statement as a fact that seems 'off' I ask where they learned said fact. If you cannot back up the statements you make then you shouldn't be presenting them as facts. When someone writes and undefined and poorly explained opinion I'll ask them to expand on it.
I'll ask you again: What are your defining concepts and attributes for:
Oh, I do know what I mean by those things. But your ongoing attempts to divert discussion with demands for definitions and sources are rhetorical squid ink and not worth responding to. So I ignore them and will continue to do so. If you really want to have a discussion, then do so without the sophomoric tactics.
lol @ you people - copium much?
We invented the elevator, the IGU, the skyscraper, modernism, had all the case study houses, the new york 5, and all the software you use on a daily basis.
Quit being intentionally thick.
You also invented school shootings.
gwharton wrote:
"Oh, I do know what I mean by those things. But your ongoing attempts to divert discussion with demands for definitions and sources are rhetorical squid ink and not worth responding to. So I ignore them and will continue to do so. If you really want to have a discussion, then do so without the sophomoric tactics."
Not at all. I'm asking for your views on the topic. I ask because I suspect that people have different interpretations of what defines American culture and [current ] mainstream architectural thought.
If you're not willing to explain your views on these topics then there cannot be any discussion.
Non Sequitur wrote:
"You also invented school shootings."
Canada invented war crimes and indigenous slaughter. 'Murica just took the concepts and improved on them. Well, except for the war crimes. The Great White North still holds the title of best in that category. ;)
I'm joking of course.
Hey, at least we owned up to it and are trying to make things work. We've not actively working backwards on all fronts. We have plenty of Elk up here... come on up.
You had me at elk. I'll be right there.
Trump's poster boy for 'Bad GSA Design" is San Francisco Federal Building renamed to Nancy Pelosi Federal Building by Morphosis
The use of metal screens and the thin building plan for ventilation is interesting here but Morphosis is too focused on creating disorienting imagery and alienating spaces. Nobody really *likes* Jazz or avant garde electronic music. Or plays Death Metal at a wedding. A cold fish.
"The USA began literally as a Rome LARP, and the 18th century is the foundation of our nation and culture. So it's not inappropriate to look to those periods for some cultural continuity and inspiration in public architecture."
America began as an experiment, an incredibly liberal experiment in self government by the people built on ideas from the Enlightenment. The fact that its earliest buildings where classical is a result of neo-classicism being popular at the time. Had America formed in the 1830's my guess is the Capital might have been neo-gothic like Britain's parliament building. I suggest reading what Thomas Jefferson said about Classicism. I think you'll find his preferences where more about aesthetics than the symbolism that cultural chauvinists pretend.
Part of the fallout from the obtuse and simplistic polemics promoting classicism, such as Shubow's, is that they have diminished appreciation of architecture itself. Shubow shows no understanding of the long, rich, varied tradition of modernism, its subtleties, its complexities, its values, its value, itself based on long tradition. Instead, MAGA style, he sets it in opposition and baits us. Nor does he show any understanding of what makes any work of architecture vital and enduring, including, especially classical and traditional. Compare his words, his narrow thought, with those of creators past. His defense is mindless and non-esthetic, in fact ugly.
One of the few contemporary examples Shubow accepts is the Ronald Reagan Building (Cobb and Pei!}. By any metric, it is massive and staid, without the grace and energy that defined the best past examples of classicism, of neoclassicism. It is not beautiful. It is a homely beast. I give it a pass because it was designed to fit in with the other buildings in the Federal Triangle, which I suppose it does. Que sera.
The building, however, is a fitting mask for the MAGA movement and all those who create and perpetuate shallow myths of our supposed greatness. I date the decline of our country to the man who told us:
"Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”
Reagan, who ran up deficits with his tax cuts and supported friendly dictators, told us to feel good about ourselves and turned us away from civic responsibility and against the institutions that supported our common purpose and wellbeing. It has been downhill ever since.
“There is a cultural movement in the white working class to blame problems on society or the government, and that movement gains adherents by the day. Here is where the rhetoric of modern conservatives (and I say this as one of them) fails to meet the real challenges of their biggest constituents. Instead of encouraging engagement, conservatives increasingly foment the kind of detachment that has sapped the ambition of so many of my peers. I have watched some friends blossom into successful adults and others fall victim to the worst of Middletown’s temptations—premature parenthood, drugs, incarceration. What separates the successful from the unsuccessful are the expectations that they had for their own lives. Yet the message of the right is increasingly: It’s not your fault that you’re a loser; it’s the government’s fault.”
J D Vance, Hillbilly Elegy. I'm curious how he'd walk those words back now. Actually, I'm not.
“Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”
Does anyone remember the time when a president told us that and we listened?
Make America America Again.
On a related note, apparently DOGE/Musk has discovered GSA, uh oh...
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.