No, I don’t think they should go through with this process. Instead I believe we should keep on advancing the structure of government buildings to show how far America has come since then.
If this order is to be executed, it will be much easier to distinguish government buildings between regular buildings. It will bring beautiful architecture in modern society. With that being said, there will also be cons with this. It will be easy to know which buildings are the government. This could result in easier terrorist targets and things on that line
The Lincoln Memorial is a very special monument to our country and i believe that its uniqueness that it holds is a quality that needs to keep applying its purpose for itself and rather its representation and image be inspired or even copied for future buildings. There's not much to be said than that monuments holding a historic value for what they are expressing be copied, that realization to people perceiving that image to be less fascinated because its been already seen by other buildings and monuments as the same in a sense to it really takes away that part. And lastly that style for the building is architecturally not commonly relevant or commonly built upon anymore mainly having to do with the modernistic appearance that's being applied, so to have an old style of architecture be reintroduced to the modern aspect of our world would be a waste of time and funding.
The Graeco-Roman architecture style has been fading. The once gloriously intricate designs on buildings and grandiose exteriors have been exchanged for glossy glass buildings with sheer sides. I’ve always admired the old architecture and looked at it not just as a building but as a piece of artwork. Despite my affinity for the Graeco-Roman style, I don’t think that we should force architects to build government buildings like this simply because some people think it looks attractive. The government buildings should be a reflection of the times and the style that the majority of people find eye-pleasing.
That doesn’t mean that I’m not sad to find these details fading in modern architecture. Buildings have to be built quickly these days to accommodate people. Back when this architecture was prominent (which it was for thousands of years), to make a building of that magnitude was a huge commitment, which meant time, which meant you gave more thought to the finer details of it. In modern architecture, we’ve said goodbye to ornaments such as the leaves on corinthian columns. We’ve said goodbye to a lot of things that make a building a piece of artwork and not a block of cement. I’m not saying that all modern architecture shows poor quality- because there are some really cool buildings that are engineering marvels. It’s just once you get up close to it, you see that there really isn’t anything much to it. They’re meant to be seen from a distance, not inspected up close.
Oscar Wilde famously said “everything in moderation, including moderation” and believe it or not, this applies to government buildings. While modern architecture has its charm, too much of it can ruin the venerable towns and cities of America. In 2004 the stunning Scottish Parliament Building in Edinburgh was completed, but to the surprise of the architects, the city hated it. Although an architectural feat and a beautiful building, the Scottish parliament building clashed with the ancient castles and buildings that previously defined Edinburgh. Washington D.C. and many other historic towns and cities in America are at risk of being ruined by modern architecture; a little here and there is fine, but I want to be able to recognize America in 50 years.
3
@Jack McGurk I couldn’t agree with more.
Although there is beauty in Greek and Roman inspired architecture, for a sign of the progress of our country, I believe government buildings should be designed in various architectural styles. I also understand the connotation that comes with the ancient styled buildings, being authoritative, and how that is important for the government to appear to the public. But it also poses the government as an elite group, when our country was meant to be inclusive and accepting. The incorporation of new architecture styles would promote an evolving government that matches the needs of the people and also more accepting than a daunting, pillared construction. To further the inclusiveness in the construction process, a board of architects and government officials from all types of ethnic, social and economic backgrounds should come together and collectively design our new government buildings, using the best fit style.
I don’t think all the new government buildings should look like the Lincoln memorial. The Lincoln memorial just wouldn’t look special. Everything would look so boring. I think all government buildings should look different and unique. If everything looked the same, it would take away the creativity of the architecture and design.
I personally believe that government buildings should be built to demonstrate the elite work of our government, but i do not believe that every building has to look like or should be built like the Lincoln memorial. Our country focuses so so much on what the materialistic things look like, when really all that matters is what is going on in the inside, how the government fuels and operates our country steadily.
Although looks is not the most important thing, to have similar style architecture for all largely government related buildings, it could be an outstanding external look for foreigners to see how much we care about our country and all the hard work and effort that gets poured into our nation.
@Summer Schultz, you are correct. Why will taxpayers' dollars go into making buildings look pretty when they can go into funding for other things that will actually benefit all US citizens.
I think that the United States is rapidly becoming more diverse and inclusive to most types of people. I believe that our new government buildings should represent this idea of inclusion. To me, the bleached and rectangular government buildings are a thing of the past. I see them as old-school and too conservative for the state of the nation at the moment.
I would like to see new architecture that involves new abstract building layouts. The Museum of African American History in Washington, DC is beautiful. I love the tiered design and the brown color it has. In the future, our government buildings need to be more abstract and inclusive to all.
@Harrison Carter I agree wholeheartedly with your statements. Old school American architecture has always exuded this feeling of entrapment, with very simple colors (or lack thereof) and what looks like bars on the Lincoln memorial and white house. It keeps those within safe and secure but excludes those of different values. America today should show it's acceptance in it's various cultures through its architecture, or at least that's what I believe the designs should be based off of.
I think there is beauty in diversity. If everything looked the same, it would dampen the effect of each building and architecture, because there is so much of the same thing. If everything was different, each building would be special, because it is unique. I think that each building should look relative to the time it was built, even though the ancient Greek architecture does look cool, with its white stone, pillars and domes. The federal order “Make Federal Buildings Beautiful Again” would definitely dampen creativity and diversity, and would also make it hard to tell which building serves which role.
@Ian Ploucquet
I like your point about determining the role of the building by the architectural styles used. And as an aspiring architect I can see how freedom of expression is important to the creation and use of new ideas and to the beauty of our cities. However, I'm not sure DC is the perfect place for architects to be "trying a new brush stroke" per say. Washington DC's beauty is in its uniformity. Every monument is woven into the winding paths and open fields like they are part of the natural surrounding. They all also share the same note of Greek and Roman architecture that we have come to associate with DC. While I do believe it is strong to use an executive order on an law that deals with the mere style of buildings, it is all done with the best intentions.
For instance, what would you think if they said they were gonna make a monument to Obama and decided to use an African style of architecture. It would be a little… strange. Especially if you set it in Washington DC. All this act is trying to do is prevent an architectural smudge in the beauty of our nation’s capital.
I think all government buildings should look different from the Lincoln Memorial. I think this because if all government buildings looked alike, it would take away the creativity of the structures. Creativity is important to structures because it displays the new and imaginative ideas put into the architectural structure. Even though the buildings such as the White House and Lincoln Memorial are fancy, I still think all government buildings shouldn’t look alike because it makes the design look lazy since it has already been done. I think the president and the government officials should decide how the buildings are done since they have supreme power. So as you can see, that is why I believe all government buildings should look different from the Lincoln Memorial.
I think the lincoln memorial is a very beautiful building. The stone pillars and overall architecture definitely keep it apart from the buildings you can see in the background of the picture. Although this is a beautiful building, the design is not modern and does not look very American to me. In fact, the structure of the building almost seems a bit greek. Furthermore, with all the new building designs and new technology, it would make sense that a federal building stands out, but not in the way that would make Washington D.C look like ancient Greece. So it is my opinion that the government should not make all their buildings look like the Lincoln memorial, America can be a little more original than that, right?
If every building is built in the same way, what separates buildings like the Lincoln Memorial to regular federal buildings. Architecture should be creative and not confined to a certain style. Buildings deserve different appearances, to separate and signify that “this building has a purpose”. I think the design of a building is up to the architect, and architects clearly do not like this.
I think every new government building should look like the Lincoln Memorial or the white house. I think this would show the tradition of the united states and i think they should keep the tradition going. Also it would be a cool torrest area. These old buildings get more attention than nice, new modern buildings. They should keep building like this because we have New York city. If you really want to see a new modern building, you can just go there. Nothing against New York City, a lot of my family is from there, but I think they should keep tradition going and keep building old-style buildings for the U.S. government.
When I think of government buildings, the ones that come to mind are generally in the Greco-Roman architecture style: the U.S. Capitol, the White House, and the Supreme Court building, along with most state Capitol buildings, all feature pillars, the occasional dome, and white stone. It’s reminiscent of ancient structures like the Parthenon, and much of this is due to the fact that these buildings were built during a revival of this architecture style in the early 1800s. However, government buildings should not be limited to this style of architecture. Instead, they should reflect America’s own history of architectural achievement. The title of this proposed executive order dismisses this history: it implies that the Greco-Roman style is beautiful, which is arguably true, but more importantly, it implies that famously American buildings such as Frank Lloyd Wright’s Falling Water are not beautiful and not worthy of housing government agencies. This should not be the case. Federal buildings, many of which are dedicated to the celebration of America’s history and cultural achievements, should partake in this celebration by being designed by American architects with originality in mind.
Although classical architecture is something that is very beautiful, I strongly believe that each federal building should instead be more tailored to their state, geography, and history. This not only removes a standard that has to be followed, but it raises tourism at these sites, as now there is something unique, something mesmerizing that is a must see for tourists.
The architecture of iconic government buildings is something that attracts over 22 million tourists a year. The classic ancient Greek styled monuments have become some of the greatest symbols of America, like the White House. While these buildings and monuments are something people travel thousands of miles to see, they do lack uniqueness.
The executive order “Make Federal Buildings Beautiful Again” is said to be restricting architects from being creative. The creativity in the design of modern buildings has been a sign of growth and moving forward in America. You have to think about what the buildings could symbolize in our society. Some would argue that we are moving backwards.
1
@Katie Block 2 While some might argue that we are moving backwards, it could also be a sign of something great. Take the Renaissance, for example. The Renaissance was a time of great innovation and art, and it was inspired by the works of ancient Greece and Rome. It was a time when the people of Europe searched for solutions to the problems that the Middle Age has caused. Although the executive order "Make Federal Buildings Beautiful Again" may appear to restrict the creativity of architects, it may also lead architects into the right direction, and give them a blueprint to develop beautiful and creative Greek architecture. Just because they are forced to make government buildings resemble Greek architecture does not mean that it will just be boring slabs of stone and marble. I would rather have a very detailed and well-put together federal building than something "modern", that tries to push the envelope of being creative. I think modern and abstract architecture is not the way we should go in terms of representing our federal agencies and monuments, but I think that we should instead have an American Renaissance of our own, and "Make Federal Buildings Beautiful Again" can lead the charge.
Uniformity has dominated Washington DC architecture since 1790. Many people believe the capital should embody the freedoms and diversity that the United States prides itself on. However, this consistent design establishes Washington DC as unique from other cities. I can personally attest that a visit to the nation’s capital will leave you in awe. The white, sophisticated array of buildings do not resemble anything of the common, modern composition which regularly goes unnoticed. Instead, this Greek and Roman style reminds visitors of the country’s roots. Without appreciating the country’s history, we can not progress in the future.
Absolutely. A nations capital reflects its ideals and culture, for example the brutalist architecture of the soviets showed dominance and effectiveness, the lights of Tokyo at night depicts the vibrant culture of a modern Japan. What shows equality and liberty better than the architecture of the worlds first republic? Take a look at the Lincoln memorial, twelve identical and powerful pillars proudly working together to hold something up greater than themselves. The pillars ooze stability, strength, and synergy all quality’s our nation strives to exhibit. The idea that expressionism will be lost due to this executive order is false as Washington D.C has arguably the worlds strictest zoning laws already. Buildings have been limited to ninety feet tall since 1910 and are squeezed into tiny plots of land. Any form of architectural expressionism not following the Ancient Rome precedent has already been minimized by zoning laws and population density. The executive order should be passed because we need a uniform capital that depicts our values as a nation and expressionism has been long dead in Washington D.C. anyway.
2
@Danny Ahern could not have put it any better
I have a sister who lives in DC, and I always enjoy seeing the beautiful architecture of the city when we visit. The Capitol dome and Library of Congress interior are particular favorites of mine in Washington. I think the marble columns and intricate details are beautiful. I personally prefer this kind of art and architecture to the more modern stuff. I’ll see “modern” buildings coming up in my own city, Wilmington, and tell my mom that they just kinda look like big, shiny Rubix cubes. However, I don’t think that means we should cut off architects from designing how they want. Encouraging beautiful cities is a good idea, but not necessarily at the expense of artists’ freedom of expression. Architects may use their buildings and creations as a way to share a message, and prohibiting their style cuts off their voice, in a way. That said, I think the Trump administration gives this order with good intentions but is not making the best choice.
I’ve always liked to refer to the 21st Century as a time of progress, which is why when I read about how they were trying to stifle architect’s creativity, I was a bit shocked. I’ve been to Washington D.C. more times than I can remember and, while I loved the classic Greek and Roman style present in many of the older buildings, I remember seeing a lot of modern architecture as well. This is the capital of the United States. It represents who the United States is, so do we want it to represent a country that is practically violating one of its own Amendments under pretense of an order called “Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again”?
People are promised freedom of speech and expression but if all buildings in one of the most important cities in the country are forced to be the same, what does that say about the people in the country? Are we being forced to conform in ways that we don’t necessarily agree with? So many protests have taken place these past few years, many of them having taken place in D.C. itself, that have been based on changing social norms that shouldn’t be considered normal. People have worked really hard to change the United States for the better, to modernize people’s way of thinking, so reverting back to an older style of architecture seems to be counter-productive. Besides, why would anyone want to go to a city where everything looks exactly the same. Nothing would stand out to anyone and D.C. would lose the diversity that makes it unique.
1
Architectural creativity is one of the main unique factors that distinguish American cities from one another. Each one combines several influences to make an identity unlike any else, and for this reason, our government should not make each government building a uniform classical design. While the buildings in Washington look great together, I don't think the entire nation would benefit from narrowing our scope of artistic expression in architecture. When visiting new cities, one of the highlights for many people is to see the unique style of the state capitol or other government building. Americans are creative and unique, so our government buildings should reflect our values.
Though it can be argued that PresidentTrump has proposed lots of ridiculous ideas of how to both counter threats and improve life on the home front, the idea of “making government buildings great again” speaks to me. Though I do not think that government should all be modeled around the Lincoln Memorial (for the sake of preserving its individuality), I think it is necessary for our government buildings to give the presence of structure and power. I personally believe that over the turn of the century, the support and belief in the government has diminished. I think when government buildings are old and run down it comes off as a symbol of weakness and neglect. It is difficult to associate those buildings with the importance they truly have when they look like old standard buildings. What says more about power and unity than a large and beautiful building overlooking the town and pumping out laws for its constituents within?
I think new government buildings should be built differently depending on the time they are made. The Lincoln Memorial was built with greek and roman architecture in mind, which is something that makes it stand out. But if every government building in Washington D.C. looked like this, not only would the Lincoln Memorial lose its individuality, the city would become boring. If all the buildings looked the same, tourists would stop coming to visit.
1
When I went to Washington D.C, I was amazed by the Greek and Roman-inspired columns at the Lincoln memorial but also by the 10 foot tall Lincoln sitting before me. I didn't know architecture could be so beautiful, it seemed as though the White House and Lincoln Memorial were made from legos and not real.
This executive order by the name of "Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again" would indeed make them "beautiful" but would they be unique. This draft reminds me of a bumper sticker that reads "yes, you're unique... just like everyone else". To really make a difference I believe we must create a new design that is inspired by America and not something that has been done before. When we find this uniqueness, we can truly set ourselves apart from the other countries and Washington from other states.
I wouldn't say I'm totally against the idea. In fact, I would love to visit D.C again, especially if it had a more unified design. These new buildings could bring in a new crowd of tourists which would spread the wealth and a sense of well being. I also wouldn't mind not saying to myself "wow another red-bricked building" as I walk down 14th St. It would be awesome to see more color and spirit blended into the street and that is what I hope the future both D.C and the U.S will bring me.
2
Making all government buildings in the same style is a useless endeavor. The world isn’t the same as it was when the Lincoln Memorial was built, and we shouldn’t try to conform to an old status quo. It was built to commemorate a man who fought for slaves to be free. He fought for change, to upend the old ways, which goes to show that older doesn’t always mean better.
In fact, older things can be considered boring. We go to see the Lincoln Memorial because Lincoln meant something to the nation, and across the water, we go to see the Jefferson Memorial, built in the same style, because Jefferson meant something to the nation, but all the white, marble, columned memorials tend to blend together. They’re beautiful, of course, but when people tour Washington DC, they don’t want to see the same thing over and over again. They want to see the essence of our nation, and the essence of our nation is change. In a lineup of all the museums of Washington, the one that stands out to me is the Museum of African American History, because it’s design new and innovative. Similarly, if we want them to make an impact on people, we need our memorials to stand out from one another. We need to show the nation's true colors.
1
@Elliot Wells
I once went to Washington D.C, perhaps five years ago or so. It was beautiful, white marbled buildings everywhere and beautiful architecture all around. I couldn't really appreciate it's beauty back then because my feet were so tired, but beautiful nonetheless.
Three years later I went to Italy, and I laid my eyes upon Roman architecture for the first time. I knew that the architecture of D.C was inspired by Greek and Roman architecture, I'd seen pictures to prove it. But the similarities hit me hard back then, and my father had even brought it up (probably to test my historical knowledge.)
That said I can look at a building in Washington D.C and one in Greece and Rome, and I can tell the difference. For one the American ones are less yellow. I can look at the capital building and the white house, fully knowing they were inspired by Greek and Roman architecture, and yet I will always see them as purely American.
But classical architecture wasn't the only thing in Washington, there was also a variety of modern architecture spread throughout, these mostly came in Museums or Galleries.
Personally, I'm all for artistic liberty, but I wouldn't call the classical style of architecture boring. Modern architecture is great but the key is to balance the modern and classical styles of architecture to coordinate with each other and the landscape. I also believe that the classical architecture is more suiting to memorials and such while the modern style fits museums.
Individuality is important, and one way the U.S. expresses itself is through architecture. I believe that it’s great to change and develop the way our country is expressing itself, but it’s also important to keep in touch with our history. It’s important to respect where we have drawn our ideas from. I agree that limiting how we may design our buildings, is a “complete restraint on freedom of expression,” but bashing classic architecture and wanting to eliminate it is not the solution.
The culture and architecture of ancient Greece and Rome is beautiful; it symbolizes the greatest empires and advancements of humanity. In my opinion, it would be great to carry on their remembrance. This pushes me to think that there must be a way for modern society to coexist with history. Society has changed tremendously, and it can be difficult to grow with those differences, while wanting to connect with our history.
I hope that we can find a way to bring modern and classic history together. I hope we learn how to grow without forgetting where we came from.
4
@Sofia Noonan I agree that this is definitely pushing on freedom of expression through architecture. Obviously this is a right that we claim to be one of our most precious in this nation, but I also agree that keeping in touch with our roots is essential to remembering what we have evolved from as a country. Looking at the examples of more modern architecture in the linked article, I have to admit that they aren’t my favorite. I really don’t like them at all if I’m being honest. I can appreciate the unique styles and creativity, but I don’t feel that they represent our government appropriately.
The Greek and Roman architecture styles are very elegant, and I always subconsciously associate these buildings with something of importance. I think that since all buildings falling under this order would be federal, it would make sense to unify them very obviously and make them easily identifiable to even the most uneducated eye. Just because they follow the same style does not mean they will be exact clones of each other. Ultimately, they are all federal buildings, so it is within the federal government's power to decide what architectural style should be the default. I agree that expression through architecture is important, but I can see why buildings like these could be an exception. Architects can still make each federal building unique under a more specific, stylistic outline. Architectural expression has endless opportunities to be completely free beyond federal structures.
2
@Sofia Noonan I love the way you worded this. I completely agree with you that its necessary for the US to find a good balance between embracing history and individuality in architecture. The government must learn to ‘coexist’ respectfully with the new and original ideas coming from modern architects and keeping our influence of ancient Green and Rome.
By channeling great human achievement through modeling our government buildings on ancient buildings, we inspire generations to look to our ancestors for inspiration. Accepting new and modern ideas from interesting artists leaves us with unique beauty in each work of construction. Our nation must find a healthy balance.
I think the United States Government buildings all have the same type of built to it(Greek/Roman) but the design of the building is what gives it it's unique structure. If all government buildings looked like the Lincoln Memorial, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the different buildings because there would be no diversity in the building designs. So in all, I think government buildings should not look the exact same.
@Nick
Our country’s motto is E Pluribus Unum, a Latin phrase meaning out of many, one. This is a diverse country that contains many different cultures and people. I think that having a uniform style to all federal buildings would create a bland, cookie cutter look and not reflect the excitement and youth of our country.
In many cases, a building’s purpose is reflected in its architecture. Buildings represent different things and the outside of the building should portray that uniqueness. On a trip to Washington a few years ago, we went to a few of the Smithsonian Museums. The architecture of some of them was very modern. The National Museum of the American Indian, the National Museum of African American History, and the Air and Space Museum at Dulles all reflect modern architecture. They are really beautiful buildings. It would be terrible for a museum about Indians to be placed in a building that looks like a Greek temple.
Given that most Americans pride themselves on individuality, I think that it is important to allow for new and innovative architecture as opposed to copying building styles from ancient times.
1
@Nick yeah I agree with you, it's such a stupid idea to even have this question. Why would we make every single government building the exact same as the Lincoln Memorial? I feel as though it's disrespecting his memorial as well because it should be unique since he was our president.
Our nation’s capital is unique and appealing to the human eye. Personally I do not think we should change all government buildings to have the same Greek/Roman architecture. Doing this will simply take away the beauty from buildings such as the Lincoln memorial and the US capital building and we will eventually have Greek/Roman architecture as the new norm. It would take away the individual glory for those buildings.
i think we shouldn't do that because i think that we should all be different in our own ways. and we should be able to have our houses look however we want. and now have to look like everyone else. i think that is what makes Washington, Washington our own state and that's what make us different
The Roman/Greek style is the type of building everyone seems to expect, but it doesn't put forth the idea of the future that people want to project. If these buildings are meant to outlast the current officials lifetime, they should be suited for a future idea of what our society will be and what it should stand for.
I think that, although it might be cool for all of the architecture to match, there is no individuality or art in the idea. Our country is known for its diversity, and I think our capital should reflect that.
I believe that not all buildings should look like the White House. If every building had the same design, look, and familiarity, there would be no originality or diversity. And I agree that it would be taking freedom of expression. Nothing should just be “copy” and “pasted” but should be inspiring for new buildings.
1
I think that the reason we think the Lincoln Memorial and the White House look so beautiful is that they have a great unique design in that they are designed in a Greek and Roman style. If anything I prefer the more modern designs like the Burj Khalifa or the Tokyo Metropolitan Government Building. Their designs are more futuristic, creative, and visually appealing, in that they look almost more like a Picasso with hard, visible shapes and an almost abstract look. On the other hand the older Greek and Roman style looks more serious and sends out different vibes than something like the Burj Khalifa. In the end, I think that government buildings' style should be determined by their purpose, so the Supreme Court or the Congress Building should be built in a Greek or Roman style to send a more serious message, but an Embassy should be more futuristic and more like the Burj Khalifa to send a well off vibe, as well as be more welcoming than the Supreme Court.
1
My parents being architects, I have heard a lot about this. Both of my parents seem to think that maybe it would be nice to have a certain degree of uniformity in government buildings, but making them only a certain style is not the way to do it. I agree with them that buildings reflect the culture of a place at a certain time, and that to make them all one style is a bad idea.
1
@John Ritsko I agree with you. I think that there should be some defining characteristics of a government building, but that the building should reflect the purpose or culture relating to it. If something is more original, it will be more interesting to look at and more identifiable.
1
This is quite a strange and subjective executive order, which I believe is completely unnecessary. Our country should preserve uniqueness, not make everything the same. How does this order benefit anyone at all? I am confused, what inspired them to make this decision with absolutely no prompting? I mean, I doubt many people have strong opinions on this topic, I believe it to be random. I think that this order was made to have more media attention and not for any concrete reason. This administration makes many decisions for just that purpose, it rarely works, though.
1
If every building looked like the Lincoln Memorial, I would be so bored. Every government building should not be made like the Lincoln Memorial or the White House, they should all look unique to their time period and their architects. Both of those buildings were made a long time ago, 1922 and 1800 to be exact. Making all the buildings look the same will not make the capital more beautiful, it will only look more boring and unoriginal. The world is changing, so why not let architecture change as well? The only people who should decide how these buildings are designed are architects and maybe the president and their cabinet. The government needs to stop being so stuck in the past and try new things, I mean why not?
I personally think that government buildings should reflect the culture and style of a place. But this means something different to everyone. In my opinion, the idea of constraining architects to just one style is outrageous. Why, if we are a country of cultural freedoms, must we represent ourselves through just one style? America is a creation of many backgrounds- the Native Americans, the Europeans, the Mexicans, the Japanese, the Chinese, thousands of others, all coming to, or staying in America for different reasons. We are a stewing pot, so why aren't we representing ourselves as one? Uniformity is bland. It will make Washington D.C. look like a huge, government-controlled city that has no cultural diversity. If we were to make our buildings in many different styles, we would present ourselves as yes, mismatched, but we are proud of that and that is what makes America America. Ignoring this is like ignoring our cultural diversity, closing your eyes and ears and saying "la la la! I can't hear you! What culture? What diversity?" That, to me, seems sad.
1
Every new government building shouldn't be created in the same style as the Lincoln Memorial because it is a restriction of expression and creativity. It will dampen architectural diversity but not dampen creativity too much because there's still a lot of new things that could be added to the classical style. The people who pay for building should decide how they want it to look and the architects will have to adhere to the wishes for the person who wants the building to be constructed. If the architects make any changes they should request it as they didn't buy the building. It's like if someone has ownership of a house, the person who owns it and bought it with their own money should be in control, not someone related to them who's living there.
I think all government buildings should look different. Each one should be unique and done in a different style. If all of the buildings were to look very similar, it would look bland, boring, and uncreative. There should be something special about each building instead of just being based on the Lincoln Memorial.
I think it would be a disservice to tradition to make all governmental buildings the same. In my hometown, there are a bunch of old monuments and homes that have been constructed over 100 years ago. They’re all unique, different, and hold their own histories and are a time capsule back to the 20th and 19th centuries. Much like the individuality of these local buildings, so too, the governmental buildings and monuments we see today in Washington are all made and constructed for a specific reason, person, event, etc. It would be just odd to make them all uniform. Why would you make the Vietnam War Memorial the same as the Lincoln memorial when the simplicity of the wall transcends and correlates its meaning and significance to American history? Making all governmental buildings uniform causes a lack of individuality and reason behind the architectural and abstract purpose these buildings hold.
Government building should all look different. They should not resemble another (like Lincoln’s memorial) since whoever or whatever it was build for, it had a unique impact in society. The difference among the buildings can bring more people to see them as if they all looked the same or relatively similar. Government buildings should all have their own unique essence given to our society.