Make America Beautiful Again?
Built in 1935, the Supreme Court in Washington D.C. was designed by architect Cass Gilbert.
It’s rare for traditionally-minded architectural groups such as the ICAA (Institute of Classical Art and Architecture) to share consensus with the modernist-leaning AIA. But, with the provocative, Trumpian name “Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again,” the new draft executive order has done just that. So, what has led these unlikely bedfellows to embrace a similar argument? A belief that this new order would set a dangerous precedent towards an authoritarian enforcement of style.
As a background, the draft executive order, proposed by the Washington-based activist group NCAS (National Civic Art Society), endeavors to set a general standard for new federal buildings to be built in a “classical” style. As far as has been reported, President Trump has neither seen, read, nor responded to the draft. Furthermore, the President is not necessarily known for seeking to build traditionally-designed, tastefully-restrained buildings. Consequently, putting politics and demagogues aside, does the draft order actually discourage creative freedom and limit the architect’s ingenuity? Furthermore, what does the supposed need for such a draft order say about the current architectural climate?
The new federal courthouse in Austin, Texas.
Many of the articles and interviews I’ve read seem to draw two particular pessimistic conclusions from the document, those being— 1) The draft executive order seeks to mandate the construction of only one particular style of building (i.e. classical buildings in the most formal sense of the word); 2) the government, as The Dallas Morning News cites, “ [Is] imposing its will on the creative freedom of its citizens.” While these two accusations certainly are grave, if we actually consider these accusations against the draft’s rather broad language the resulting ramifications don’t seem quite so dire. As any lawyer will tell you, the key to understanding the implications of this document lies in a close and careful examination of the draft itself. In particular, Section 2 (a) of the draft seems to sum up a rather generous stylistic latitude which doesn’t limit architects any more than say a private patron setting parameters for a sponsored design. The draft order notes:
Architectural styles— with special regard for the classical architectural style—that value beauty, respect regional architectural heritage, and command admiration by the public are the preferred styles for applicable federal buildings.”
My first take? Shouldn’t all new federal buildings be beautiful, take into account local heritage, and be liked by the public?! Furthermore, this statement doesn’t seem to encourage necessarily one particular brand of classical design but rather nudges the architect to take into account both the region and the public’s general taste (more on this later). While the classical style typically calls to mind a white, multi-columned building topped by a pediment, it also technically birthed styles as diverse as Mudéjar, Gothic, Romanesque, baroque and even by extension Art Deco. To my mind, the only styles actively discouraged by the draft include Brutalism and Deconstructivism (the style displayed on a number of federal buildings constructed in the last fifty years). With their jutting edges and massive, forbidding walls of concrete, these buildings for the most part show little respect for the human viewer or user. The difference between the former and latter groups? The former, wide-ranging group follows the basic tenets of classical/ traditional design while the latter group’s stylistic principals actively attempts to eschew classical design tenets (specifically those principles which dictate the proportion and scale of a building).
A Brutalist federal building in downtown Indianapolis.
Almost all of us can say we’ve had the displeasure of venturing into some Brutalist, 1970’s-era federal building. These buildings are nearly almost as oppressive on the outside as they are on the inside. Have you ever wondered why? It’s not just the lack of ornamentation or the dreary façade; it’s also the hubris by which the architect sought to disregard the tried and tested components of architecture rooted in classicism. These rules were not simply invented thousands of years ago by men in white togas. Rather, the classical precepts of architecture evolved out of thousands of years of trial and error. The temples of ancient Rome gave way to the Romanesque cathedrals of the Middle Ages. The principles behind these buildings in turn evolved to suit the tastes of the baroque period. Later, architects like Louis Kahn utilized classical forms in modern buildings like the Kimbell Museum. Throughout the centuries, architects have taken cues from the tenets of classical design to construct new styles of architecture which please the human eye, create pleasurable spaces to be in, and successfully weather the environments. Is the draft limiting creative freedom? No, it’s simply requiring architects to use greater artistic ingenuity through the use of tried and tested formulas.
Thomas Jefferson Memorial, number four on the AIA’s top 150 American buildings.
A recent poll shows that public preferences suggest a general endorsement of classical designs. Although not a direct gauge of taxpayer taste, the AIA’s 2007 public poll of 150 favorite American buildings overwhelmingly favored federal buildings constructed in the classical/ traditional mold. Furthermore, those stylistically modern buildings which made the list take into account many of the tenets of classicism discussed above such as scale and proportion. Why then are we ignoring the public? I would contend the new draft is not only a response to the current trend of bad architecture but also should be a wakeup call to those responsible for allowing such projects to be built.
Designing institutional buildings often echoes the old adage of “a camel is a horse designed by committee.” There are multiple players with separate motivations to consider— as the writer Andrew Ferguson delightfully phrased it— “the architects who design the government’s buildings, the critics who praise them, the academics who try to explain them, the trade associations that drape them in awards, and the wealthy civic boosters who like showing up for the ribbon cutting.” What is clear is that the citizen taxpayer is little more than an afterthought, their wishes overridden by the vocal interest groups who allow their different agendas to trespass on the desires of the general public.
Built in 2012, the new federal building and courthouse in Tuscaloosa, AL is both classical in design with modern amenities.
Having practiced architecture for decades and designed a couple of smaller-scale institutional buildings, I can attest to many of the issues faced by architects and empathize with them. Architecture school teaches us to break from the tried and tested models of past great architecture. The academics therein reward only the most outlandish designs. Civic patrons seek architecture which draw crowds. Critics encourage designs which evoke commentary and supposedly “elevate” the public’s taste level. Trade associations and lobby groups pressure for designs which either promote a specific product or fulfill some agenda. The end result? An ugly building which likely neither fulfills its designated duty nor produces a pleasant place to visit or work. It takes a lot of work, cooperation, and negotiation for a public building to be a truly beautiful one.
The newly renovated Highland Park Town Hall. A smaller scale institutional building I redesigned a few years ago. Although Spanish colonial in style, the design adheres to the tenets of classical design.
Rather than please the few (i.e. the interest groups described up above), shouldn’t we take into consideration public polls and build according to the wishes of the ultimate client (the taxpayer)? Referring back to the original arguments against the draft executive order, I think we can safely say that in no way will the order completely mandate the construction of only one style of classical buildings. Additionally, I doubt the draft will stopper the creative freedom of American citizens. If architectural history has taught us anything, it shows that new and exciting forms of buildings can be built according to traditional design tenets. Rather than throw the original architectural rule book out the window, I would argue the new order actually encourages creativity by challenging architects to design something new within a set of standard criteria which appeals to the general public.
In closing, let me leave you with a quiet thought on the shared symbolism between architecture and government. Currently our currency features images of our classically-inspired civic architecture. The penny, for example, until recently featured the Lincoln memorial. The nickel features an image of Monticello. The twenty-dollar bill features the White House while the fifty-dollar displays the Capitol. If anything, this ornamentation on our coinage quietly affirms a sort of symbolic link between the positive, stalwart ideals of our government with the solidity of traditional buildings. That this unspoken relationship is codified in statue seems to me to be a logical and welcome step.
Can you imagine a Brutalist building like the J. Edger Hoover FBI building replacing the Lincoln Memorial on our coinage?