Don't make this about Trump. What is the "National Civic Art Society?" Why in the world would I care what this group recommends? Most disturbing is the echo of "degenerate art," this time applied to architecture.
47
My random thoughts:
* How do ionic columns go with christmas lights and decorations, which are surely coming next?
* Can I fight cookie-cutter pagan-era GrecoRoman architecture better by citing the separation of church and state, Or by embracing the Trump state's preferred religion?
* Doesn't state-decreed architecture seem very socialist?
* If this is to be legislated, can we get a rider mandating plastic flamingoes for each building, or a gnome? Or to get something out of it, a clothes line for use by the neighborhood!
36
Trump making decisions on things he knows nothing about? What else is new?
31
I hate Trump, but support this. Look at New York City’s skyline. It’s peak of beauty was the Jazz Age, the 1920’s and 1930’s. Look at what we have lost: Penn Station, the Singer Building, to name two of the most egregious examples. Post WWII modernism was just so misguided, and actually played a part in destroying city life and making it cold and sterile. Brutalism was a joke, and has no value. It’s not for nothing that Boston City Hall is so hated. The proliferation too, of glass box towers (One Vanderbilt, Hudson Yards, Nordstrom Tower, I’m looking at you) needs to be stopped. It’s just ironic that Trump himself pulled down the Art Deco Bonwit-Teller building to build his black glass hunk of junk on 5th Avenue, and took the old Commodore Hotel next to Grand Central, and turned it into another glass junk box, the Grand Hyatt.
32
Neo-Classical architecture is beautiful. Modern architecture is ugly. Only thing with which I can agree with these reactionary yahoos.
Trump threw away the historic Art Deco facade from the former Bonwit Teller dept store building he demolished to build Trump Tower on Fifth Ave. instead of giving it to the Met as they’d requested because it would’ve added another two weeks to his construction schedule to do so.
25
Should the guy responsible for the Trump Taj Mahal really be allowed to set architectural standards?
59
Trump’s ignorance is unparalleled.
24
Can anyone not see the direct parallel between this sterile "back to the old ways" government order and the third reich's attitude toward "degenerate art".
87
There are some rather dark shades of 1933 here. For Adolph Hitler and his fellow architectural dreamer, Albert Speer, the Aryan superstate was to be expressed as much in art and architecture as it was in politics. In their view, classical architecture was the only "pure" form of architectural expression, and anything different, particularly modernism, was viewed as the creation of Jewish deviants. The best book I've read on this subject is called "Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics" by Frederic Spotts.
86
Anyone versed in history knows that Adolf Hitler favored classical architecture. He made Albert Speer the Nazi party's favorite architect. After the war, Speer was among the 24 major war criminals.
I wonder how many war criminals Trump will create?
50
I am currently pursuing a second career in architecture history. Last semester I learned that the founding fathers chose the classical style for government buildings because of its association with the democracy of the early Roman Republic. Ironically, Trump’s plan is very undemocratic.
14
It's amusing how much money he thinks he has. The old granite post office would cost many millions to duplicate. Amazing.
You should believe this will actually happen -- maybe before The Space Force takes Mars.
This does remind me of Albert Speer. Where is he when Trump needs him?
18
Do you wear modern clothing and drive a current car? Do you have a computer and smartphone?
Why must architecture be the only discipline that needs to be stuck a millennium back? Contemporary architecture looks forward, towards the future and incorporates the needs of people today. Yes there are good and bad examples but it’s not as if there was never “bad” architecture that existed before. With new building technologies and materials, comes new design. If people want classical architecture, they should also be stripped of their other modern conveniences like their electric cars and cellphones and WiFi.
21
Prince Charles tried the same thing in the UK 30 years ago. Luckily it failed.
Modern buildings need modern solutions for 21th Century problems. Rows of columns in front of a building don't solve anything.
And yes there are many failures in modern architecture as well. Just look no further than all the Trump towers around to get the idea.
31
I passionately applaud the proposed policy of restoring Greco-Roman architecture to its rightful place as the standard for public buildings in America. Modern so-called “architecture” is not architecture. It is a hideous cultural atrocity; it is the negation of beauty and goodness; it has crushed the human soul beneath the weight of its Brutalist concrete. Ever since the tragic rise to influence of Gropius, Le Corbusier, van der Rohe, and their kindred cabal of cultural criminals, so-called modern “architects” have blighted cities around the world with ugliness. Boston City Hall and Empire State Plaza are only two egregious examples of many of how our communities of citizens have had a false aesthetic they loathe foisted on them by the misuse of their tax dollars. The last architects in America who knew how to get it right were McKim, Mead, and White, and they were working over a century ago. One of their masterpieces was Old Penn Station, the demolition of which was a crime. Does anyone really think that New Penn Station is an improvement? For two and a half millennia, from the days when the Acropolis and the Forum were new, Greco-Roman architecture has been synonymous with the dignity of democracies and republics. It is being true to our roots to maintain this style of public architecture in our nation today.
14
You have revealed the flaws in brutalist architecture, but there are countless examples of beautiful modern buildings. Your view of architecture and architectural design may be influenced by personal biases against modernism and an embrace of romanticism. There are poor and wonderfully inspiring examples of all types of architectural styles.
33
I like the part where McKim et al were specifically mocked in “The Fountainhead,” and some know so little even of their own ideology (let alone architecture) as to be clueless regarding this.
9
I can't help but wonder if an unspoken motive of those who would keep joy and beauty on a tight leash is to head off buildings that include energy efficient features and solar panels.
22
Thank goodness for this proposal. Let's build lasting architecture that has value and appeal for generations rather that the kooky designs that many designers think are necessary to reflect their imprint on history. Ancient Greek and Roman architecture is still the best!
6
When you do any biometric analysis, actually tracking how people look at buildings, you see pretty quickly that people have a hard time looking at and taking in modern ones. So Trump + National Civic Art Society's move is in fact, a good one! It will make DC a better to be.
American architects, pot-WWI and !!, really don't study the human experience at all, or the biology behind perception (unlike car designers who know all about it) which is one of the reasons modern streets aren't popular walking destinations the way the older ones are in cities world wide. Architects today don't do preference studies either!! They'd do better work if they did.
https://commonedge.org/three-foundational-errors-in-architectural-thinking-and-how-to-fix-them/
Article above explains what you learn about the brain + body if you understand a bit more about how people function - something architects today would be much better off if they studied!
6
@Benet I'm pretty sure the classical architects didn't study the human experience, or the biology behind perception, or do preference studies.
They were, however, artists.
8
@Jim Demers
Actually classical architects did look at what worked and copied it, bringing design ideas forward over thousands of years. In other words, they did implicit preference studies for centuries. You see this with the White House (c. 1800), pictured above, which has the portico copied from Palladio's Villa Rotunda in Italy (c. 1550), which in turn was inspired by Pantheon in Rome (c. 125) which in turn copied Greek columns built five centuries earlier.
WWI, industrialization, triumph of engineering, disrupted the old way of thinking and building - to our detriment.
7
It’s fun, watching right-wingersntrying to change the subject away from their own ignorance.
9
This specimen, Smith, does not cite a single piece of evidence in support of his assertion not liking 'what our government has been building.' Go look this dude up. So far in my travels via Google, it's pretty clear an objective perspective favoring evidence is not his calling card or that of the people shilling for him and the organizations to which he belongs or leads, like this National Civic Art Society. Really is like Invasion of the Body Snatchers out there. Thank heaven for New York.
9
The National Civic Art Society would launch Washington into an architectural era reminiscent of that which prevailed under Albert Speer and his failed-artist client. Out of the Society's vision springs Speers' model plan for totalitarian Berlin, a style perhaps best characterized as autocratic imperialism. Under the current regime, it ironically, sadly, seems so appropriate.
24
Sadly ironic that a Republican administration (supposedly the party championing small government, minimal regulation, and individualism) would entertain an executive order that mandates architectural style. The suitability of an architectural style is specific to the site and purpose. The proposed order reeks of mid-20th century fascist and Stalinist central planning and invites design stagnation.
39
Architects, you have put yourselves out of business for making the ugliest buildings this planet has ever seen. Away with you and enter a new era of beautiful buildings with stately form and magnificence.
4
Trump + the National Civic Art are onto something!
In Boston at an architecture college, I now teach that the 'founding fathers' of Modern Architecture had brain disorders - so they paradigm they came up with can't really work to build a healthy, civic realm.
You can read more about this here:
https://commonedge.org/the-mental-disorders-that-gave-us-modern-architecture/
It's all part of the 21st-century paradigm shift; how new understanding in biology and psychology completely reframe our understanding of how architecture came to be and how buildings impact people.
1
Trump seems to prefer Louie Quatorze baroque glitz, a gauche leaning in sync with his authoritarian personality. According to a Maureen Dowd column, he adopted this style in his first New York City apartment, where her friend, a major network executive who resided in the same building, witnessed the daily morning exit of the night before’ s “escort”, a different one each morning, she noted. Trump, Dowd reported, thought it a style best suited to impress the ladies, and so adopted it to his Trump Tower digs. As Trump’s grandfather famously made his fortune operating brothels in the Klondike, one can only imagine what the new Federal Architectural standards will look like. LOL.
27
@Patrick
‘from which her friend’, that should be. (An unintentional malaprop on my part.)
2
“The best aesthetic descriptor of Trump’s look, I’d argue, is dictator style.” Exactly right; gaudy and fake, just like everything else in his life and career.
41
Wait’ll he comes out with a ukase against paintings like the portraits of the Obamas. Or issues orders to have the Vietnam Memorial razed.
Beyond the stunning ignorance—just for openers, Jefferson et al thought their architectural style was exemplary of exactly the liberal, Enlightenment values that Trump’s attacking—there’s the ugly, ugly politics. Far as I can tell, the way to see the look these clowns want is to take a gander at Speer’s plans for Germania.
And for crying out loud, anybody with a gram of taste ought to be able to look at what the Oval Office is now, or Melania’s Christmas Horrorshow, and laugh any claim about art and architecture right off the planet.
18
Frank Lloyd Wright isn’t neo-classical. Neither is Pei, or Gehry, or a long, long list of great American architects.
Know what Trump and the rest of these goons actually have in mind?
This is what Trump and the rest of these goons actually have in mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_architecture
28
Should a new building for the "Space Force" be adorned with Greek Columns?
9
This is what fascist and communist dictators do: mandate nationalistic, dictator approved building styles. And who would dictate? Trump: the buffoon in the White House whose taste is pure kitsch. Give me a break.
22
Why is this story not on the front page? The critical part of this story has to do with "Art and Design," but the more important context is the U.S. joining fascist practices and its battle against "degenerate art."
Hitler. Mussolini. Franco. Now Trump.
38
Albert Speer is smiling
16
Quick. Find out if Albert Speer is still available.
11
How typical of a tyrant. The only question is who will be his Albert Speer.
9
Did anybody else read this and think of the Nazi party's Degenerate Art Exhibition?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art#Artists_in_the_1937_Munich_show
9
Having some dogma dictate architecture.....ridiculous, and the executive branch having final say....absurd.
Washington DC is a beautiful city, dynamic and diverse - don't screw it up.
7
This is nuts.
7
Ah, Trump keeps on drawing comparisons of his autocratic ways to those of Hitler. Quite a few people here appear to not know that there are many beautiful modern buildings, and that classical architecture, the real thing, is not practical so it will end up fake.
He hates windmills too. And modern plumbing. Is there no depth to which he will not descend?
The way down is easy, greased on the skids of undiluted selfishness without conscience. Idealism be damned, let's blame somebody and aim to cause maximum damage to our planet and to humanity.
14
I rank this pretty low on the "reason to stock up on canned goods and bottled water" list right now. And it's a pretty long list.
2
Irony of ironies: Ayn Rand is turning in her grave. "The Fountainhead" clearly and persuasively lays the case for Modernism as creating landmarks for our evolution as a culture. In her view, classicism is for unimaginative fuddy-duddies, which is apropos of Trump. I don't agree with Rand on many things, but I'm all in with her on architecture.
3
Classical architecture generally look better than “modern” style that goes out of fashion.
I am not saying more modern architectural styles are bad as many are very good and pleasant to look at but the government have the tendency to always pick the worst design because it is avant-garde (not the style). Elected officials pick the most trendy design to show he/she is progressive and by the time the building is done it is out of style. Brutalist, International, Constructivist are probably the worst in this regard.
Just think, do you go to London to look at St Paul's or One Canada Square? Champs-Élysées or La Defense?
3
Well, time to give the Vietnam Memorial the old heave-ho.
6
Having been there last month, lemme tell ya...the Champs-Elysees is zippo to write home to mom about.
And the general look of Paris, as one would have thought everybody knew, is primarily the product of Haussman’s 19th-century modernizations that imposed a neo-classical and Beaux-Arts look on the old, human-sized, hard to police, jumble.
In other words, dude, they forced a modern look. And now, that modernity is being passed off as classical and ancient.
9
Seems to me this idea gives a blank check to those who would tear down all modern buildings and replace them with Greek/Roman styles.
I smell graft.
14
@Tom Cotner that's what it seems more likely about than aesthetics.
2
Why not dictate that all building be built to look like toad stools? Classical Architecture is no different from Modern - both are invented styles. The challenge of architecture is to create designs that inspire, respond to context, fulfill program needs and express a communities aspirations. Mandating the "classical architecture" is the only appropriate style is nonsensical and fails to grasp the full potential of design to change lives.
It sounds like the "king" has become bored and is merely seeking new ways to limit our freedom - this sort of royal edict is not now "american" nor will it ever be. We are a free people and we will overcome the tyranny of autocracy and oligarchy.
19
Funny. He's anti-regulation when people are prioritized over corporate profits. But randomly, he wants to regulate government architecture?
Functionality should be the primary goal of a building. Greek and Roman architecture with the broad staircases are an obstacle for inclusion. Yes, there has been some bad modern architecture--but the solution is to find qualified people to vet design. The Smithsonian African American museum is an example of exquisite design.
I suppose Trump would also like the buildings built like our original Federal buildings were built--using slave labor.
16
Roger Scruton is smiling in his grave! Self-indulgent architects trying to make a name for themselves by making stand-alone, often ugly buildings that in no way compliment their surroundings has been the norm for generations. What is the difference between the modernist designs going up in NYC, London, San Francisco, or DC? Absolutely nothing- which is entirely incorrect and shows an architecture-industrial complex that serves and flatters itself rather than those it is meant to inspire and, indeed, serve.
It is time for architects to go from a rock-star mentality to one in which they strive to make the city more beautiful and inspiring to its citizens.
Parisians banned new skyscrapers in their city center once they saw Tour Montparnasse. While not going that far, hopefully this emphasis on beauty will spread across our land.
6
Contemporary buildings look the way the way they do, because of current construction technology, cost, and skill level. Carving buildings out of stone isn't realistic due to the exorbitant cost of that type of skilled labor, which might even be mute, since is actually a dying art.
To make Neoclassical Architecture today, you have to carve it out of foam....... you've all seen this look, think McMansions. Is that convincing or beautiful?
Might as well spray paint it gold.
18
@Architect
There's a huge NeoClassical-style performing arts center that was recently built in my city (the Gaillard Center). It's completely facaded in thick hand-carved Indiana limestone. Of course there's steel and concrete behind the stone, but Classical buildings have been built like that for 140 years.
Not sure why you think it needs to be done in foam.
3
@Architect *moot!
1
We deserve beautiful, functional buildings. This is the goal. It has nothing to do with Trump. Thank God. Many commenters know not whence they speak.
4
@Lisa
Standard No. 1: The lobbies must all have two story high escalators.
5
The biggest issues with new Government buildings is not what they looks like, but whether or not they are built to last. I have worked in a GSA building that was built in 1931, it was built to such a standard that it was still in use well into the 21st century, and is now undergoing renovation which will extend its lifetime far into the future.
It may seem to make sense for short lived corporate entities, unable to plan out beyond the next couple of quarters, to build structures meant to be torn down after a mere 30 years. However, the Government should plan to be here for the long run. As such, its buildings need to be constructed to a higher standard, and meant to stand the test of time.
11
@JB I agree. I've worked in a handful of fed buildings, and the most unpleasant ones were built during the Clinton and W. Bush years. They looked pretty on the outside (one was "classical" style, the other modern), but the interior working spaces seemed pretty cheaply made and weren't very pleasant (low ceilings, cubicles galore, etc).
3
I will be truly depressed if this becomes an executive order something that can only be seen as a sign that we live in a dictatorship. The empower will be mandating a style that he prefers and feels makes him look good.
It is ironic to me that the “Make America Great Again” president would defer to Europe for architectural expression. I would urge the President to read up on the great American architect Louis Sullivan. If implemented he would be turning over in his grave.
Mandating a style is no assurance of quality. It will most likely be the opposite.
12
@Grilled Sardine I agree that an executive order such as this would be a further sign we live in a dictatorship. I would go a step farther, to say it would be further confirmation that Trump draws inspiration from Nazi designs and symbols of power, which should be both alarming and deeply disturbing. A description of Nazi Architecture follows: "While similar to Classicism, the official Nazi style is distinguished by the impression it leaves on viewers. Architectural style was used by the Nazis to deliver and enforce their ideology. Formal elements like flat roofs, horizontal extension, uniformity, and the lack of decor created "an impression of simplicity, uniformity, monumentality, solidity and eternity," which is how the Nazi Party wanted to appear."
5
If this proposal would eliminate the possibility of another “modern” federal building like the hideous downtown DC FBI building, than I’m for it.
6
Good architecture respects the occupant when walking from the exterior to the interior and imparts good memories when walking back out.
6
I advise everyone to review an old SNL sketch "Mike's Marbleopolis" where Fred Armisen and Scarlett Johansson implore viewers who want to add a burst of class to their home and driveways: "You gotta getcha selves some mwuable cwolumns." Hilarious, this is our president!
8
Depends on who you like least, arrogant modern architects or Trump. Pick your poison. Arsenic or cyanide?
1
Ridiculous. This from an art critic whose idea of taste is Mar-a-Lago. We've already littered the landscape with buildings that look like middle schools and medium security prisons with snap-on colonial trim.
Trump seems to admire the Russians. Didn't the Soviets teach us what happens when you force art to be politically correct?
38
Trump is channeling his inner Mussolini (in more ways than one): https://www.dwell.com/article/making-federal-buildings-beautiful-again-president-trump-executive-order-fffb1df2
10
@Susan
Thank you.
Two thoughts came to mind- this was the first: This is exactly what Hitler and Mussolini did during their eras.
The second thought is that: great architecture has always been done in the style of its time.
Not in a style of the past.
And speaking of things that happened 50 or 100 years ago is scratching the surface in That the roots of the classicism being discussed goes back thousands of years, when man barely had invented the wheel.
Strict Classicism or neoclassicism even is a thing of the past , and we must as a culture look forward not backward. The principles of classicism are timeless: proportion , order , rhythm, etc., but to just repeat what primitive man did thousands of years ago, which is supposed to make us feel good today? I don’t buy that.
2
Anyone playing fascism bingo, the President is going after "degenerate art" now.
27
@James I was waiting for someone to mention this.
4
Albert Speer and his grandiose kitsch for Hitler comes to mind. Control freak Trump is acting like a typical dictator.
12
Holy shades of Mussolini!
12
Please, please don't consider any of these modern monstrosities for our Washington D.C. New York has been decimated by them; they're ugly, have destroyed the iconic New York skyline, rendering it almost unidentifiable and actually quite depressing and cold! There's a reason most European cities decimated by the war chose to rebuild their cities in the beauty of their original architecture. What's wrong with that? Must we in America always tear down what was and change to something "new" in the false name of progress???
12
@Carol One of the defining characteristics of fascism is censorship of expression and the arts. Your personal disdain for a certain style (or Donald Trump's, for that matter) does not warrant censorship for censorship's sake.
11
Many major European cities (particularly in Germany) are rife with mindbogglingly ugly postmodern buildings.
3
@Carol And Paris banned the construction of any building over 7 storeys when the ugly Tour Montparnasse was built, realizing the disgusting modernism would completely overwhelm the beauty of their city. In fact, it's the best place to view the rest of city because you can't see the tower itself.
1
Nancy Pelosi for President! She will deal with Trump's Executive Orders the same way she dealt with his State of the Union Address.
10
Let's see, day after impeachment is over. Where to start.
Address climate change? Nah, that's a hoax.
Work on infrastructure plan? Nah, too much work.
Look at shoring up Social Security? Too complicated.
How about fixing health care? Already killing it in court.
OK, that leaves...federal building design.
21
I hate to say it, but as an amateur classicist and longtime cultural writer, I'm loving the Modern backlash.
It's not that there is anything wrong with Modern, though I find much of it boring. (It also brings to mind Jennifer Aniston's observation after her divorce from Modern-loving Brad Pitt that at least she could return to comfortable furnishings.)
It's that people who love the classics have been derided as old fogeys. Well as the New York Life Super Bowl commercial on the four Greek words for love demonstrated, there is life in us Greco-Romans yet.
That said, I don't think the government should dictate architecture. But neoclassical is the style the Founding Fathers envisioned for Washington. It suits D.C., just as New York has been able to blend a melange of styles, including classically influenced Beaux Arts (think Grand Central), Art Deco (the neighboring Chrysler Building) and the International Style (the Seagrams Building).
Another city trying to adopt New York eclecticism is Jakarta. It's not quite as seamless as the Big Apple. But give it time. -- thegamesmenplay.com
6
Unpopular opinion, but the Lincoln Monument is *ugly* and a direct affront to the man it pretends to honor. Lincoln is not a larger-than-life god, he was a great and flawed man. His godlike temple suggests that we cannot aspire to his greatness nor recognize his flaws. Aesthetically it's more "brutal" to my eyes than the FBI building, which has better scale and fits its purpose better.
Classical architecture was designed to 1) overawe the "little people", 2) make the best artistic deployment of inconvenient supports (columns) required by material limitations. And like much of modern architecture was designed to look good on the outside, no matter how inconvenient or useless the interior.
6
DJT in his endless confusion thinks we elected him to dictate his choices for every nook and cranny of life. Is every building to be coated in gilt, too?
19
@Alexis
No, it is a nanny state campaign strategy for 2020 since Mike Bloomberg entered the race. After Iowa, the Bidens are so last week!
I'm surprised that the proposed new executive order does not order that all new federal buildings be gilded towers.
7
It sounds as though this would have prohibited the Vietnam memorial one of the most visited and acclaimed sites in DC!
11
Ayn Rand's infamous character from The Fountainhead, architect Howard Roark, suffered multiple conniption fits over the very same type of architectural order/restrictions. Apparently the pseudo neo-conservatives in the current White House haven't done their required reading?
5
@sloreader when I first saw this writing, I thought...oh, yes, satire. Then I thought of Ayn Rand’s “Fountainhead”. Then I asked Siri to make sure I was thinking of the correct book to reference. The architecture of 2020 reflects the thinking and events of the 21st century. As much as I like columns and Greek and Roman temple inspired marble buildings, I also want to see what contemporary materials and methods can build. I think the rebuilding of Paris’ Norte Dame will require much thought and creative design, it’s original beauty needs to be preserved. DJT is not an artist or architecture. He is welcome to build his empire’s building to match his taste. However, please do not stifle future designs. Should the buildings for the new “Space Force” look like the Lincoln and Jefferson memorials?
1
Of course architects are against the proposal. It would mean that they could not design sterile,ugly buildings that only other architects like.
4
I’m guessing you are not in the profession. A lot of the so-called style or design is influenced by the client.
Additionally it goes through value engineering in which the client renders the architect’s design a shadow of its original intent.
5
@Robert Hanson , stereotypes and meanness need not mar every discussion we have; please consider that.
4
Pretty rich, coming from a guy who owns a building in NYC with a lobby that looks like an oversized bathroom in a Florida McMansion.
20
@Allison
Thanks for giving me the best laugh of the past few days! (And, yes, I have been in the building years ago.)
4
"Dictator style," one commenter puts it accurately. I'd add that it reminds me of Nixon's effort to re-dress the White House police in some sort of operatic outfit. That idea didn't go far and this one shouldn't.
8
They start by destroying “degenerate” art...
12
As opposed to the garish monstrosities he builds with his name in gold? Just where did they get their figures on who likes and dislike any architecture?
What’s next, a chariot ride through Washington with the loyal throngs mobbing the roadside hollering, “Hail Caesar!”?
8
Does anyone remember the Reich, when Hitler mandated neoclassical structures for the victorious version of Berlin—Germania—for 1950? I’ve even seen the lavish 1942 book on this.
This represents the same authoritarian thinking.
10
@Carl Ian Schwartz Exactly my thought. Where is Albert Speer when Trump needs him!
3
Dumb decision but not fatal, as long as the buildings themselves are functional and efficient and provide for future needs that can be anticipated. Dictators and emperors always suppose they have a monopoly on taste as well as power, unfortunately.
2
Classical style -- Roman, Greco -- that means European style of past centuries.
A little Euro-centric much?
4
Trump's taste is brass and velvet he has no sense of style.
5
If you say you dislike everything a president has done during thier term you are a liar. I think Trump and the Republicans with him are criminals, but I like this idea and there are others they have done that I like too. I did not like everything past presidents did but they were not harmful to our nation.
3
Back in the US, back in the US, back in the USSR!
5
He wants to legislate taste too? Yeah, he doesn't believe he's king. Ha!
5
My God, even James Hoban, Architect of the White House would rise up to resist this!
Go Roger Lewis and Ben Forgey!
FYI,
One of the best Spirit of Place Memorial Installations in Desart/Callan/Kilkenny Ireland was for James Hoban, Architect of the White House! It is modernism telling an ancient story. It won two major AIA Design Awards as well in 2008.
Images are on the website: www.SpiritofPlace-Design.com , Projects
Travis Price FAIA - Washington DC
1
Architects are also calling for Notre Dame to be rebuilt with observation cupolas, glass minarets, and infinity pools. The interests of pioneering architects - creativity, excitement, experimentation, cutting edge styles - are diametrically opposed to the interests of an enduring government that wants to communicate consistency and gravitas across the long duree.
4
The notion that the U.S. government should mandate any architectural style across sites and projects is absurd. The fact that this administration wants to revert to classical styles of long dead empires is as sickening as it is unsurprising.
Also, lumping all modern and contemporary architecture into a single stylistic category is too broad a brushstroke. Is *anyone* willing to say that the J. Edgar Hoover Building and the the National Museum of African American History and Culture are of equal quality? I'm not. The former may be an eyesore, but the latter is a profound marvel, and a beautiful addition to the National Mall.
13
Republicans add red tape to projects to ensure the U.S. looks more like... ancient Greece?
Democrats could add red tape to projects to ensure energy efficiency to fight climate change... but that would be the "bad" kind of red tape, right?
12
These photos really are helping to make a case for the executive order. The 60s and 70s were a real low point for architecture.
9
I agree that classical architecture is beautiful and that much modern architecture is ugly or dehumanizing. But even the Greeks and Romans were constantly experimenting and developing new forms. And modern architecture can also be inventive and beautiful. Often the distinction is in the eye of the beholder.
If I were choosing from a variety of designs for various buildings, I might tend to favour classical architecture, or designs that are throwbacks to picturesque historical styles—I have a fondness for Tudor houses—but it's important to encourage creativity, and I worry that top-down directives like this, as official policy rather than simply expressing a preference in individual cases, send the wrong message.
Obviously Washington D.C. is full of buildings built in classical or neoclassical forms, and there's a certain logic to building structures intended to last for many decades to look timeless. But all cities need to adapt and change. In the early the 20th Century, architecture critics railed against skyscrapers like the Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building—both Art Deco masterpieces that are now considered beautiful.
Tastes change, and as much as I love classical architecture, I don't believe it should be mandated, or that other styles should have to be justified by some tilted criteria before they can be approved. It's one thing to express your own preferences, but quite another to demand that others share them.
18
Another attempt to move backwards to an earlier era. I thought progress was intent on moving forward and to evolve.
This only caters to those who long for those old days. I’m for moving forward. Let’s see what’s ahead.
8
“This executive order gives voice to the 99 percent — the ordinary American people who do not like what our government has been building.”
Let's see the proof for that statement. Then we'll talk.
24
I support classical style. Too many modern architects confuse weirdness with creative.
8
Architects would protest, it requires far greater skill and talent of them than they possess, and it means they will have to create new schools that teach classical principles and techniques. Moreover, the Beaux Arts style should be legislated for all other civic architecture, particularly museums. Contemporary architecture is a failure.
3
@Plank , well, then, I guess we'll make everything political so that your idea of art can be legislated and forced on everyone. Wouldn't that be great. Maybe we could tear down all the buildings you don't like, while we're at it. After all, you and Trump know more about architecture than the architects you despise. And more about painting than artists, and more about science than scientists. We know. What is it with people who think that they should get to run every single part of life, "legislate" every decision of others, and crush freedom and spirit under a gray curtain of their disapprobation? A real danger to the human freedom they probably think they support. No, they do not. Neither, at all, does Trump.
20
Oooh! With cherubs and the nude statues and everything? Kewl!!
Good grief.
3
@jb might I add- another well-known Dictator,
who fancied himself as a Painter
(in his younger days)
is famous for saying...
"Anyone who sees and paints a sky green and pastures blue ought to be sterilized"
Adolph Hitler said that one.
4
At the end of his State of the Union speech, Trump praised American ingenuity, saying, “We are pioneers. We are the pathfinders. We settled the New World, we built the modern world… This nation is our canvas, and this country is our masterpiece. We look at tomorrow and see unlimited frontiers just waiting to be explored.” His words painted a bright future of America -“the best is yet to come”- but this executive order negates that vision. When we create buildings to represent and uphold our democracy, why not use our creative power and American ingenuity to come up with the best solutions? Let’s challenge our design professionals to create federal buildings that function well for the communities they serve and fit into the context of their specific locations. I ask that the architectural future of our government and country not be determined by decree but be debated openly by the citizens and the communities that will be affected. I believe there are contemporary solutions that will still inspire the respect and awe of our historic buildings without pretending to be of their era.
14
@Claire Miller
Well said- that discrepancy probably exists because... he didn’t write the inspirational text in the speech… And his vision for the built world isn’t large enough to even understand probably what he came out with, on this potential architectural mandate…
2
"contemporary architecture has “created a built environment that is degraded and dehumanizing,”
Most people would agree with that statement. The majority of post-war (1945) architecture is ugly.
Why is a city like Paris beautiful compared to American cities? I think it's the design and traditional architecture.
16
That same line caught my attention too. While, I do believe they are correct, I don’t believe that building in classical design is correct answer. I believe building psychology and sustainable development principles would be the better tools used to create building that address the needs of the people that use them and the community where they are built. 
10
The majority of ugly pre-war buildings have collapsed, fallen down or been razed for their ugliness. A building “style” in no way is a guarantee of a beautiful building.
2
@David are you referring to these “modern” buildings in Paris? Have you been there lately.? Old and new can live in harmony and create beautiful public spaces. Visit any major city in Europe or South America, wherever. Get with the times https://www.visitparisregion.com/en/inspiration/top-experiences/10-modern-contemporary-architecture-to-see-in-paris-region
Hitler and Mussolini and other dictators preferred “classical architecture and frowned upon “ modernity” . Trump revels in the past and wants to dictate what is good for Americans. Looking forward to gold plated tacky buildings in The capital.
5
Where's Roger Scruton when you need him. Neo-classical is usually just as bad as the contemporary stuff. Maybe a more careful aesthetic judgment?
6
It's critical to note that despite the title of this article, this prospective issue does NOT impact only Washington. The majority (+/- 75%) of Federal properties are located OUTSIDE of the Washington DC beltway.
20
When I was young in the 70s I stayed in a youth hostel in Rome. It turned out it was the hotel for the Olympic Games at the Fascist Arena. Changed my memories. It was huge, beautiful.
2
One of the most famous modern buildings in history is Terragni’s Casa del Fascio. It’s manipulation of localized symmetries/asymmetries and interior volume are unique. The way it implies volume with planes is very interesting and successful. This same concept was explored in a completely different form by Mies for the Barcelona Pavilion in the same year both were constructed before Mies fled Nazi Germany. Terragni’s implementation of the grid was eventually adopted by Mies who then used this as his ultimate expression of rationalism on the facade of his NYC Seagrams building or the organization element of all of his planar/steel skeletal structures in Chicago at IIT. A well know artist named Rietvekd also explored the concept of planes enclosing space and implying volume in the house he designed for Schroeder in the Netherlands.
3
@GB , fascism has a kind of beauty, the singular focus and creation shaped by the dominance of a single will, motif, and requirement. Its power is in the lack of diversity (a sort of stasis in permanent obedience) and mass uniformity of the whole. Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will", the classic documentary of the Nuremberg rally of 1935, reflects the aesthetic appeal of conforming masses under control of a dictator at his height.
4
@GB
Where do I start? Comments I’m reading about how beautiful fascist architecture can be, I agree with, but the root of it with Mussolini‘s dictatorship And stylistic mandate is the problem. Dictating a style for every piece of architecture built in a time and place is just wrong. Which is also the problem with this new potential stylistic mandate being promoted by Trump.
A Common response to debates about a piece of architecture or a style In architectural circles is…
Yeah, but you can’t build a city out of that.
Cities are by nature a mishmash of styles, and time. That’s what makes them beautiful. And Mussolini‘s era buildings in cities like Rome and Como are part of that story told over time. But they could not have been, and thankfully never were fully realized in, the continuum of building urban fabrics in that country. And we should not go down that road either!
2
How long until the executive order attacking degenerate art?
48
@AC Bingo. Look for the exhibit during a second term.
9
@AC My taxpayer dollars should not pay for your degenerate art!
1
@John OBrienj
The amount off federal tax payer dollars going into any art form is extremely small. Same for NYC budget, and NYS budget. Since those examples are most of the time the largest amounts in the country, your share even if a billionaire is a few dollars per year. Don't worry too much; it won't increase very much, if at all, under any of the current crop of elected officials.
2
A question for Mr. Trump: If we stop the world, do you promise to get off?
36
@JRS
Loved that play!
What does he have to do with design? Who asked him? Can't believe this ridiculous nonsense.
11
@Irene It was asked and recommended by "the National Civic Art Society, a nonprofit group that believes contemporary architecture has 'created a (sic) built environment that is degraded (sic) and dehumanizing.'”
1
@John OBrienj
Architecture is a reflection of the people of its time. Businesses and governments pay for architecture - architects don’t pay for the architecture that gets built. architects provide a service to execute the goals and aspirations of their clients. So this is a cultural dissection that needs to happen. A good look in the mirror.
To come to terms with how we and those before us set goals for the Built environment and hired their Architects to execute their visions.
2
Seems to me that the issue is not the architectural style and finesse of its design, but the invasion of politics into architectural choices. Commentators have invoked images of Albert Speer's designs as being goal of Trump, because Speer served a political and social end, depicting the majesty of the Reich through architecture. Trump has a long history of promoting name and commercial interests through otherwise bland design.
If we have a means to promote an American style, a style of diversity, a style that reflects the regional location of the building, and has a sense of timelessness, that it will be appreciated into the future, then standards are worthwhile. Our American architecture should allow for voices other than big design firms. I don't want bland. I don't want Roman temples. I don't want big-box shopping mall cheap. I want architecture that is functional for the business at hand and architecture of which I can be proud.
19
I am no fan of Trump or knee-jerk pseudo tradition but I think there is a lot of merit in this proposal. Too much modern architecture IS brutalizing and anti-social. It DOES alienate much of the population. It does undermine a valuable sense of democratic, historical tradition. Much modern architecture is nothing more than elitist architectural ego running amok, trying to out-do the last over-the-top flight of fancy. When every new building is trying to make an ironic or controversial visual point versus 'tradition' ... eventually you end up with a sort of soulless, meaningless environment that alienates the people it is meant to ennoble and serve. No doubt the architecture profession which has done so much to enable the cheapening and dehumanization of our built environment will scream at any limits. But we have reached a point regarding government buildings where an honest re-thinking of what is being designed is sorely needed. The government buildings people go to see and love and respect in Washington DC (and elsewhere) are not brutalist fortresses or abstract, angular boxes.
10
@Overton Window
My friend, built architecture reflects the goals aspirations and priorities of those who pay for it. Yes the architecture-client relationship can turn into a collaboration, or sometimes the opposite where the client lets the architect do whatever he or she wants, but in the end clients are responsible for what gets built so if there is a call to action in the business and government world to re-examine our goals and aspirations for the built environment , that is a collective effort and dialogue. It’s not the fault of the architects or the Architectural community If we are unhappy with what has been built in the last several generations worldwide.
2
As an architect, I certainly have a lot to say about this news. Like everything coming out of this White House, it is shocking and infuriating, but not surprising.
The best architecture responds to the needs of a building’s users, its context (physical and historical), and the environment. Any “style”, whether it is neo-classicism or brutalism, or our current idea of “modern”, is nothing more than a menu of superficial features pasted onto a box. There are very few styles that actually evolved out of honest needs and functions. With the exception of the mid-20th century modern movement (“machine aesthetic”), most of these trends were only about the outward projection of a building’s meaning as opposed to a true reflection of what the building needed to do.
Greek columns and pediments are no more functional than brutalist concrete walls with no windows. Architects have always had reputations for imposing their huge egos, but the trend is towards more responsive and more inclusive design. If there is any federal design mandate at all, it should be that design is functional, proportionally and conceptually sound, and healthy for all - inside and out. If we want to express and encourage the strength of democracy, we could do better than imposing an aesthetic that hails from the world’s first failed democratic state.
Or maybe that’s what they’re after.
52
@Laurie Fisher Agree with your words - "it should be functional, proportionally and conceptually sound, and healthy for all - inside and out."
Says it all.
11
Thanks Susi. If we really want better design and better buildings, I recommend funding arts education.
7
@Laurie Fisher
Agree. I had a government client , A politician, years ago who was not an architect, she was just a smart female politician whose only goals for her government building projects were to be:
flexible, functional, and beautiful,
And I still use those words today with every initial client meeting I have.
let’s focus on the principles of past beautiful styles be it Roman or Neoclassical or beaux arts or whatever Era you want to grab hold of... The principles should be what is mandated , not it’s stupid ‘style’.
5
Next we'll get a degenerate art show as though dictating an approved aesthetic by the government hasn't been done before. Mr. Trumps buildings, modernist or otherwise are some of the tackiest in New York City. Big Gold branding and bad script fonts adhered to ever building. I wont even touch the level of bad taste his casino's had. People dont like brutalist architecture, it understandable, but when talking about a building meant to show imposing strength and seriousness its fanstastic. I cant think of a better style for the FBI's mission.
17
Really? This is a thing now? I'm so disappointed in this country these days.
12
I've always been drawn to the federal buildings designed and built during FDR's administration. They were designed in a great variety of "styles", but the key to much is that they served useful functions, including gainful employment in their construction for many during the Depression, and they were well-built enough that a large proportion of them are still here, still in use.
This proposed executive order is classic Trump: it's all about the facade. There is no attention at all to whether a proposed federal building will be "green" in any sense. Will it feature passive or active solar systems? Will it have green roofs, and/or other methods to deal with runoff associated with its footprint? Will the building use recycled and/or sustainable materials? Will it be healthy, for its users? Will it be sited to maximize access via public transit? I could go on, but I think the point is made. The major design questions to be asked about any federal building, or any other building, actually, are the design questions that Donald Trump never thinks about at all.
31
I don’t mind any type of architecture, as long as it’s thought provoking or starts conversation. I personally feel that each building will reflect the time in which it was built, and multiple styles of architecture makes a city great.
In the executive order, it should have a clause to have each new building substantially different compared to current and planned buildings, providing an interesting cityscape for Washington, DC, and around the world.
I think Shanghai has a requirement for this in their city.
3
But the General Services Administration doesn't build cities. Washington D.C. is already built. The buildings that this order applies to will be isolated federal courthouses and federal office buildings scattered throughout many American cities. If they are built in a traditional Classical style, they will add to the diversity of those cities, just as the beautiful federal buildings built pre-1950 do.
Architectural styles are not very good at reflecting the time in which they were built, in any case. They last too long, and get revived too much. It's hard for me to see how a 'modern style' building reflects our time or place, since this style comes from early 20th-century Germany and France.
3
But you want the Federal government to adopt a style that came from fifth century Greece?
4
@Andrew Gould
With all the trim and bric a brac they will be way more expensive.
All this from a guy who destroyed decorative workmanship on the building he tore down to build that monstrosity in NYC. Decorative workmanship the city wanted saved as part of a deal to demolish a building they really didn’t want destroyed.
11
I'm sorry to note another facet of the expansion of a fascist culture underway in our nation. Architecture is very much part of that culture, as much in the requirement that art and function be subordinated to obedience to Dear Leader as in its tendency to glorify monumental, even authoritarian (in its end stage) designs. The current tendencies with regard to "hostile architecture" (created for human discomfort, see online) also bode ill for the people of our nation, now under a strange, and strangely comprehensive trend toward dehumanization overall.
30
When did architecture and architects start telling the client what to build? Suggest, educate and explain but do not try to dictate, your job is to listen to the clients program requirement and translate them to concrete and steel. If you don't like the clients style direction, do not seek the commission.
8
I find DC already has too much sameness. It's boring.
3
Mussolini tried that in Italy but unfortunately it was a disaster. Unlike Mussolini Trump does not suggest that we abandon something but that we embrace that which is good and proven over centuries. The idea that this concept is white supremacy is ridiculous.
10
@Confused Yes it is. It's about remaking antebellum America, the 'great' in Make America Great Again. The South must be feeling really good right about now.
4
I don't think that's the main idea at all. Think Europe, 1933.
3
This isn't what presidents do. This is what emperors do.
108
@PDXBruce It's also what fascists do.
3
Watch for a sneak provision dictating that Trump's name be displayed on anything built during his administration.
24
@KJR
Like Cuomo's name.
I personally like a lot of the elements of the neoclassical design of many federal buildings and structures designed and built
during the Beaux Art period and the first half of the 20th Century. As purely local references, I'd submit the Old Federal Building in San Francisco - a beautiful structure, the downtown Post Office in Napa, California, and any number of WPA highway bridges.
Unfortunately, many of these quite beautiful structures are no longer suitable for their designed purposes, having outgrown the original operating parameters.
I have to say I don't really like the brutalist style. The exterior of too many of those structures is reminiscent of WWII coastal fortifications, and having worked in a few such buildings, the interiors are strictly minimalist LeCourbousier with a vengeance (Ugh!).
What the president, in his desire for a marble and limestone paean to Imperial Rome is obviously unaware of is that more than a few design decisions are driven by the intended use of the building...and too many compromises wind up looking like the design vision of a central European 20th century fascist paradise - moe to intimidate than inspire.
9
The condemnation of Modern as degenerate is chilling. Where have we heard this before?
87
@Fritz Read I did not see the word "degenerate" in the news story.
2
The entire notion is completely daft. It would totally politicize architecture. Who really would want that? Who really thinks that's a good idea? Next, somebody in Trump's administration is going to say that he should have a say over government employees dressing choices. Gold lame for all!
14
@Jeff P , take a look at the uniformity of dress in the Trump WH, and among his many accomplices in Congress. It's a done deal now, straight from the glory days of 1952.
4
I oppose any executive order mandating any particular style of architecture for federal buildings. I have spent a great deal of time in Washington D.C. & I love the variety of architecture & creativity in our federal buildings in D.C. & elsewhere. It is offensive to think that anyone would contemplate an executive order or any mandate to stifle creativity & forward thinking design in any of our public or civic buildings & architecture. Requiring a particular style of architecture, especially neo-classical architecture, be applied to the design of any new public buildings smacks of a love of fascist ideology. I reject any enforced ideal of design in public buildings. Buildings should meet the physical needs of those who will use those buildings; and they should also be creatively designed to be beautiful in their own way. Creativity in design is a sign of the freedom that is allowed & fostered in a free society. I would never abandon creative design for some past imaginary & artificially imposed standard of good public design. How incredibly stifling!
What will Trump think of next? Gilded toilets in the washrooms of some of his favorite cabinet secretaries! Please! Spare the taxpayer such lunacy & wastefulness. This president is corrupt & rapacious beyond acceptance. Let him leave NO permanent mark on our public architecture.
11
All this moaning here about brutalist and "ugly" modernist buildings is not the point. This smacks of the Germans shutting down the Bauhaus because it didn't like the modern/anti-nationalist/universalist notions of architecture and design being taught there. It's a myopic notion that design has to look a certain way - more Greek columns! - to look "classy or "governmental" - which is nonsense. A reading of Poul Henningsen's "Tradition and Modernism" would clear up these misconceptions, rooted in the idea that elaborate or historical or ornamental means "better."
61
This is the typical action of a reactionary authoritarian government. It is part of the play book of fascists and communists who forced this idea on their countries. This idea is yet another step in the Republican Party's denial of reality. But, the idea is a natural for Trump.
62
These knee-jerk edicts from a man of no intellect continue to astound me. Which of his minions whispered this idea into his tone deaf ear? Take one look at the soul-less development he built along the west side of Manhattan and know that he has no clue about design. Or history.
Albert Speer is no doubt and inspiration.
19
@Charles
And Prince Charles who hates modern architecture as well.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/dec/27/prince-charles-10-principles-architecture-10-better-ones
1
I loathe Trump with the fire of a thousand suns. I fully expect that if Dante was right about the afterlife, Trump will be in the Ninth Circle.
That said, I think there is a small grain of a good idea here. Not the part about making all federal buildings neoclassical--that part's rubbish, as shown by IM Pei's West Building of the National Gallery and a handful of other. The good idea is phasing out brutalist architecture. As a former DC citizen, I can say with some degree of confidence what many think: that the brutalist buildings are a visual blight on an otherwise beautiful and charming city. Some of it will always be represented through DC's metro stations, but beyond that, it makes sense to move on from the aesthetic failure that is brutalism.
8
Oh, my God. Visions of Albert Speer are looming large.
28
This is micromanaging on the level of a dictator.
44
So, what do you think? Soviet Cold war kitsch or 1930's outsized German fascist neo-classicist grandiosity? I guess the latter is more representative of this order and the current regime. What's next, removing decadent modern art from museums and art galleries? (This may sound like i'm being snarky, but I'm deadly serious. And so are they.)
20
Sigh.
An executive order to mandate building styles? From the man who builds a ton of concrete towers. I’m not sure he could tell the difference between a Doric or Corinthian column.
23
Architectural style has long been used to connote strength and symbolize indestructibility. Banks, for example, have historically utilized a style that conveys a message of monolithic strength and stability. So, too, has the federal government, for obvious reasons.
The reality, however, is that as technology has advanced and tastes have changed, the design world has changed along with it. It would be ridiculous to turn our backs on the evolution of architectural styles by ignoring all that the profession has to offer.
6
This directive comes from a President that wouldn’t know the classical architect, Vitruvius, from a sexually transmitted disease. This is an attempt by Trump to leave a built legacy as he is unable to leave anything else of lasting value to Americans. His administration is unable to understand that forced architectural styles and symmetries are contrived. Styles are forced when they conflict with the program, context, special relationships, proportions, building technologies, budgets...all of which are viewed through our present modern lens. Architects have long ago recognized the folly of a classical revival in architecture. While the buildings can be beautiful, so too can modern buildings. The revival of classicism is an anti-intellectual movement: modern architecture/buildings, many times, include modern concepts from other disciplines that require thought provoking reactions and for many. Unfortunately, intellectual thought has been painted as “elitist” by anti-globalists like Bannon and right-wing pundits. What is needed isn’t an IMPOSED nostalgic style; what is needed is a sensitive modernism with a form interpreted by the architect, that conveys the power, respect and authority of a government FOR the people and BY the people. Trump’s directive is more in the vein of Speer than Vitruvius.
22
If there is one person on this planet who should not be empowered to pass aesthetic judgments on architectural projects, it's Donald Trump.
40
I see...
Anything other than "classical" architectural design is .... Degenerate Art? All federal buildings constructed in Washington DC should be designed by .... Albert Speer? And Donald Trump - who has the aesthetic tastes of a mash-up of King Louis XIV meets Saddam Hussein meets 1980s Atlantic City, NJ casino - is the national arbiter of good taste in design and decor?
Once again, our government clamps down of First Amendment Freedom of Expression on designers, architects and artists if their creative work doesn't meet the personal taste of the individual in charge of issuing the building permits.
My father was an architect, his style was modern architecture during the height of Mid-Century Modern design. His practice was thwarted by local government aesthetic review boards filled with troglodytes who liked only classic architectural design and didn't want to see anything that looked different from their own old house built anywhere. Deja vu all over again.
16
Why does "re-beautification" sound very much like "re-education?" The slope is getting very slippery. First the architecture police. Then the thought police.
28
Let's not blow this thing out of proportion. Trump's never been a strict Classicist (look at his own buildings), but he understands branding through architectural style. Every institution has a brand to promote and wants a certain consistency. This is perfectly natural. Is it conceivable that Apple would build a new building and not inform the architect that it has to be pure white and minimalist with rounded corners? That's their prerogative, and no one would say they're squashing all hope of expression with their fascist vision of conformity.
The Federal Government has a brand also, and it chose its architectural style very deliberately in the 18th century. (Contrary to what modernists will say, there were several popular styles at that time, such as Neo-Gothick and Rococo, and the choice of Palladian NeoClassical was hardly inevitable).
Over the following 175 years, federal government architecture experimented with various flavors of Classicism, but on the whole a consensus emerged that white marble buildings with columns were the most satisfactory style for the institution, and all through the 1940s, our capital was built with a consistent expression.
The federal buildings post-1960s were an aberration, and few like them. It makes a great deal of sense to end this experiment and get back to building structures that are recognizable as federal government buildings. Architects need to serve their clients and not expect tax dollars to subsidize every weird idea.
6
@Andrew Gould And the stairs?
4
@Andrew Gould Neo-Gothick, which is more frequently identified simply as “Gothick” the “k” separating it from earlier Gothic, was never a widely popular style and would have been a strange choice for a new republic to adopt. The early republic built in the style popular then and, yes, some slight case can be made that what we call “Federal” was the tailing off of rococo, but that merely supports that the first buildings our federal government erected were built in the prevailing style of its time.
As time marched on styles changed and so did the buildings of our government. The USA is dotted with Second Empire courthouses and city halls. As we moved into the 20th century a few lucky locales got art deco government buildings, including the wonderful skyscraper Nebraska State Capitol.
Brutalism is a style with few fans, but it is also a term misapplied by those who do not know better to any building they do not like. And, a bad building is a bad building no matter in what style it is designed. You will not improve bad design or streetscapes by sticking columns on the front of government buildings.
A government design code is nothing more than an authoritarian move to impose control over what should be an organic movement. A better answer to the issues that arise in the committee-led design of government building would be to choose people who actually understand architecture to serve on the committees.
7
@Andrew Gould
Since Gould and his firm specialize in traditional buildings and liturgical art he presents an opinion with a defined confirmatory bias.
Savonarola comes to mind. Rather than burning books maybe we can burn down the buildings that are anathema to our critical tastes.
The growth of Facism and Nazism proffered plans for acceptable art and architecture. Implied in this was do not disagree.
We are now in the political age of ruler and king. Having just read Rome: a History in 7 Sackings one sees remarkable parallels especially the final 2 chapters. I won't disclose what they are but please investigate.
4
I recall that scene from "The Fountainhead" where a spiffy modern building is "improved" with a classical colonnade stuck on the front.
There are bad examples of architecture from every period. A few neoclassical features will not redeem a bad building such as the clumsy National Gallery of Art in London. However, both wings of the National Gallery of Art in Washington are attractive for different reasons. Nothing looks worse than a neoclassical building done on the cheap. It is the details that make them attractive.
12
'L'état, c'est moi'
It is obvious that President Trump has no sense of art or style, and he leaves the classically styled White House as often as he can.
American architecture is actually boring relative to London with The Shard and The Gherkin and Paris. Our government ought to be encouraging exciting buildings, not same old same old.
13
@DrBobDrake
Do you go to London to look at The Shard, The Gherkin or Westminster Abby and The British Museum?
1
‘give President Trump broad power to make aesthetic appraisals, something critics say he knows nothing about.’
that’s an understatement.
11
[insert picture of Albert Speer's Neoclassical reworking of 1930's Berlin here]
23
@Josh Hamm My first thought absolutely!!
2
@Josh Hamm
Style is something the Nazi do well cannot argue with that.
1
Has the French government proposed a similar thing? No. Instead they effectively design new buildings that are a function of our time, for our time. They place them squarely and successfully in the context of their most historic architecture. To mimic historic architecture and merely apply ornament as if it were decorative icing on a cake diminishes all of the built environment. This proposed policy is nothing more than a nostalgic, revisionist attempt at imposing Trump taste on government spend. Beware.
15
@E
Most Parisians are embarrassed by some modern buildings like Les Halls and La Grande Arche de la Defense and have a love/hate affection for Le Centre Pompidou.
2
This from the man who gave us all those wildly attractively designed casinos?
When will it end?
12
While I never warmed up to the Brutalist style, those buildings reflect a period in history just as the Victorian gingerbread, Colonial, Federalist, Greek Revival, Romanesque, Art Deco, Prairie Style, etc.
Washington DC's buildings and all Federal buildings should reflect fine design as understood at the time of construction. As time passes by, the collection of Federal buildings will tell the history of the nation's architectural style as a living outdoor museum.
PS no gaudy "Trump" sign on any buildings except the municipal dump and sewage treatment center
28
Those hardworking individuals in those public jobs don’t deserve to have to walk into those buildings, unless they find it funny—-laughter is good medicine!
This raises the question, does good architecture make good people? I always wanted to believe so because the opposite is definitely true, bad architecture brings out the worst in us, Exhibit A: the current Penn Station. However, as I watched the impeachment proceedings over the last couple of weeks and delighted at the gorgeous interior of the Capitol, I realized that whatever effect there is, it is extremely fleeting and some people are beyond ennobling.
I'm a proponent of ornament, something which has been stricken from modern architecture. Ornament makes the statement that you are special; someone has given some thought and effort to your experience. Originally, in the Bauhaus days, its banishment was meant as a statement, that clean, unadorned surfaces embodied "modernism", but now it has become an excuse for cheap, shoddy design, a lack of craftsmanship, and the complete atrophy of drawing skills among architects.
Many pioneering skyscrapers in New York, such as the Singer Building and its neighbor, the City Investing Building were demolished in the 1960's to make way for the sterile glass monoliths that replaced them. Googling their interiors is a revelation. Entering them, who wouldn't feel like a king, at least for a few minutes? You can still recapture that feeling in the extant Woolworth building lobby. Given a choice between those structures and the box-like warehouses for miserable people that populate our cities today, I know which I'd prefer.
10
Your definition of modernism sounds as if from Adolf Loos in the 1920s. Modern ornamentation can be implemented in the craft and detailing of a building. However, such detailing and craft requires resources just as it did years ago. The confusion is that modern design expresses ornamentation differently. A frame around a window grouping or a balcony with an ornamental railing designed in glass and metal or the adjustment in width of an exposed floor line are typical examples. The Bauhaus expressed modern ornamentation in the stitch of a fabric or the juxtaposition of textures of different materials. This all said, minimalism is often confused with modernism. These are distinct and separate. An beautiful example of modern ornament is the glass stair in the upper gallery floor of the NY Historical Society building in the current Tiffany exhibit. Take a look.
5
@stan continople
"in the Bauhaus days, its banishment was meant as a statement, that clean, unadorned surfaces embodied "modernism", but now it has become an excuse for cheap, shoddy design, a lack of craftsmanship, and the complete atrophy of drawing skills among architects."
you said it. Also has become widely adopted in the start-up world as a way of superficially appearing sleek and and trendy and forward-looking whereas in truth it's basically just a cost saving measure (and right along with that, perpetuating the idea that open office layouts lead to increased team building and collaboration and so forth, even though in practice it serves to make colleagues extra skillful at ignoring one another and also shaming people who can't maintain perfect focus/productivity with next to no privacy and very little recourse against interruptions
4
@stan continople like Versailles or the Russian Winter Palace
This will just be wonderful for new laboratories and research structures like greenhouses. Maybe the architects should also leave out the electricity, so new building truly reflects the Founding Fathers.
36
What a great idea! Next we should propose that all Federal writings should be done in the manner of that which the Founding Father's used, with Ss that look like Fs. We need to do away with future simple, clear English. Same art. Only art Romanticism of the late eighteenth century need apply. Or, better yet, let's try a combination of that style and Nationalistic approaches that so many of the president's buddies prefer.) Military bands will now only play music from that same early time period. Forget Sousa.
But wait. The architectural style being pushed now is a FAKE style; not even American. It is actually a derivative, and a poor one, of Greek temple style. We know how that ended. While most Federal architecture represented in its many office buildings are generally pretty poor, this order could set a new low, low standard of design. Some of the best Federal architecture has been the last few decades encouragement of good, contemporary design. So sad.
Maybe we could now discuss how we want our Federal employees dress. I would think the late eighteenth century would be a good look on the president. No more red ties, for one thing.
53
I have no doubt that this initiative like many coming out of this White House has at its' heart the desire to promote the ideals of white supremacy. The elevation of "classical" style over others can have no other real intention. It is not practical or affordable to build this way anymore.
This is all about white nostalgia for the good old days.
What's next? Control of the NEA to endow only "classical" art? Ridding the Smithsonian of all non western artifacts? Banning jazz? This is all on the way I promise.
137
@Sabey
Don't you like Trump tower and Mar a Lago?
2
@Sabey Or, you know, classical architecture is graceful and beautiful. No no what am I saying, it's white supremacy. Somehow.
4
@K. There are many other styles of architecture that are graceful, beautiful and contemporary. Why hang onto the past so hard? Architecture eveloves just like music, art and literature.
You are making my point.
8
Architectural styles come and go with elitists swooning over the latest fad. Ultimately the latest fad is eventually torn down and replaced with another latest fad. I vote for buildings with enduring beauty just as our constitution endures and serves us well with rare modification. Try as we may it is impossible to improve on pure perfection.
16
@ Confused Architectural styles evolve because passionate architects, just as with musicians, writers, artists and other creative minds, become dissatisfied with what has come before. The Pritzker Pavilion here in Chicago, for example, is a beloved piece of contemporary architecture which enlivens Millennium Park with its spirited curves, making it a wonderful place to experience live music. I doubt if many in Chicago would trade it in for a brick bandshell. The Opera House in Sydney, Australia has been an internationally beloved landmark for half a century.
Neither of these structures represents a "fad." They are attempts to add an instance of beauty and grace to our otherwise quotidian built environment. You can either be open to them or continue to pine for your "perfect" past.
21
@Confused I think the theft of a SCOTUS nomination and the acquittal of Trump by the GOP proves that our Constitution is pretty far from perfection.
11
As a federal employee who spends his workday in a cubicle in a cavernous, brutalist-style building, let me just say that windows are a wonderful thing. Just having some natural light in the workspace makes a huge impact on morale and productivity. You can't design functional buildings for the federal workforce thinking only about what those who are outside.
103
@Bob
It will be interesting to see if the new standards require energy conservation. My bet, no.
3
the nice thing about large federalist monumental design is the huge stair at almost all main entrances. I've never liked the disability act requirements... but this may help overturn that burdensome legislation.
9
You can have large central staircases and keep within ADA requirements, as long as there’s an elevator nearby. Even those able to climb long staircases might not want to do so every morning.
6
@mom The very beautiful and very modern federal courthouse in Portland, Oregon has a huge stair at the main entrance. And meets ADA requirements. These things aren't mutually exclusive.
1
@mom The ADA requirements are the perfect reason to disdain this proposed order. New buildings and modern architecture can be more readily adapted to those requirements than older buildings and styles. Imposing ramps, say, onto the side of a neo-classical building may well be ugly (though I support them for those like my great-niece who is wheel-chair bound), but new buildings that incorporate ADA mandates into the very design can be functional and beautiful.
1
This is a truly disturbing proposal. A proposed executive order that physically and visually freezes American government assets in a style from a century ago, borrowed from a millennium before that. This proposal negates the broad variation of physical and cultural contexts present throughout this diverse nation. The GSA already develops and delivers great variation of design, meeting local physical and cultural contexts. This is an assault on the modern world by the American version of the Taliban.
57
First, I wouldn't trust Trump's taste. Nor mandate classical-derived designs.
But look at the Hoover FBI Buildings and the hundreds of Brutalist structures erected in the 50's and 60's by the feds and private developers and he might have a point.
If we could turn back time and build to enhance air and light and space, as opposed to imposing concrete, I think that would generally be a design improvement.
I mostly find that those Brutalist designs convey a sense of the insignificance of the individual. Reminiscent of something you'd expect to find in the USSR. Which makes sense:
"Brutalism as an architectural philosophy was often associated with a socialist utopian ideology, which tended to be supported by its designers, especially by Alison and Peter Smithson, near the height of the style. This style had a strong position in the architecture of European communist countries from the mid-1960s to the late 1980s (Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, USSR, Yugoslavia)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture
Moreover, the concrete facades age poorly and look run down.
But please don't lump in all modern or contemporary designs with that unfortunate trend. Top down, government-mandated design requirements are more likely to repeat the errors of the past than anything else.
73
@Mmm
Please do not cite Wikipedia as any research source, and certainly not as any reference for architectural design. No college or university professor in the US allows students to cite Wikipedia as a legit research source.
You cannot convince me that Charles F. Murphy and Associates of Chicago, Paul Rudolf, Kallmann McKinnell & Knowlesm, or Louis Kahn were socialists or communists. They are/were American architects and architecture firms.
Enough with the "socialist" and "communist" name-calling propaganda.
2
Completely ceding local control to federal guidelines when it comes to design? Can some Trump supporter or other Republican explain to me how this is "conservative" or "small government"?
113
When you don’t have the necessary tools to face the future, it scares you. When the future scares you, you turn to the past. Make Federal Buildings Great Again.
62
@Susi Not a Trump supporter, but this doesn't strike me as a local control issue. The federal government should be the one to decide how federal buildings are designed. The policy of awarding federal designs to modernist starchitects was not being made with any more local input.
As a former DC resident, I can say that among the locals, the classical buildings are much loved and the modernist buildings are not. We're 60 years into the current policy and the Brutalist designs it created have never been popular with the public anywhere they were built.
12