e
Trump Administration Wades Into Design Criticism with Executive Order
"Beautiful" vs. "contemporary"
Here's a political-but-not-political debate we're actually eager to see held: The recent "Executive Order on Promoting Beautiful Federal Civic Architecture" brouhaha, in which some design styles are definitively designated "beautiful" while others are deemed "ugly."
In a nutshell the executive order, signed yesterday by Trump, insists Neo-classical architecture--not that Modernist or Brutalist stuff--should be the official style for new government buildings in D.C., and new federal courthouses nationwide.
The order raises some interesting points that we'd like to hear your thoughts on; however, the language of the order unfortunately falls back on the frequent Trump tack of claiming "many people" don't like this or that, without providing any attribution or statistics.
Anyways, let's put politics aside and look at what's in the order:
In the 1950s, the Federal Government largely replaced traditional designs for new construction with modernist ones.... In 1962 [The Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture] implicitly discouraged classical and other traditional designs known for their beauty, declaring instead that the Government should use "contemporary" designs.
Hubert H. Humphrey Department of Health and Human Services Building
The Federal architecture that ensued, overseen by the General Services Administration (GSA), was often unpopular with Americans…even GSA now admits many in the public found [the new designs] unappealing. In Washington, D.C., new Federal buildings visibly clashed with the existing classical architecture. Some of these structures, such as the Hubert H. Humphrey Department of Health and Human Services Building and the Robert C. Weaver Department of Housing and Urban Development Building, were controversial, attracting widespread criticism for their Brutalist designs.
Robert C. Weaver Department of Housing and Urban Development Building
Robert C. Weaver Department of Housing and Urban Development Building
…Under the Design Excellence Program, GSA has often selected designs by prominent architects with little regard for local input or regional aesthetic preferences. The resulting Federal architecture sometimes impresses the architectural elite, but not the American people who the buildings are meant to serve. Many of these new Federal buildings are not even visibly identifiable as civic buildings.
For example, GSA selected an architect to design the San Francisco Federal Building who describes his designs as "art-for-art's-sake" architecture, intended primarily for architects to appreciate. While elite architects praised the resulting building, many San Franciscans consider it one of the ugliest structures in their city.
San Francisco Federal Building
Similarly, GSA selected a modernist architect to design Salt Lake City's new Federal courthouse. The architectural establishment and its professional organizations praised his unique creation, but many local residents considered it ugly and inconsistent with its surroundings.
Salt Lake City Federal Courthouse
In Orlando, Florida, a coalition of judges, court employees, and civic leaders opposed GSA's preferred modernist design for the George C. Young Federal Courthouse. They believed it lacked the dignity a Federal courthouse should embody. The GSA nonetheless imposed this design over their objections.
George C. Young Federal Courthouse
With a limited number of exceptions, such as the Tuscaloosa Federal Building and Courthouse and the Corpus Christi Federal Courthouse, the Federal Government has largely stopped building beautiful buildings. In Washington, D.C., Federal architecture has become a discordant mixture of classical and modernist designs.
Tuscaloosa Federal Building and Courthouse
Corpus Christi Federal Courthouse
It is time to update the policies guiding Federal architecture to address these problems and ensure that architects designing Federal buildings serve their clients, the American people. New Federal building designs should, like America's beloved landmark buildings, uplift and beautify public spaces, inspire the human spirit, ennoble the United States, command respect from the general public, and, as appropriate, respect the architectural heritage of a region. They should also be visibly identifiable as civic buildings and should be selected with input from the local community.
Classical and other traditional architecture, as practiced both historically and by today's architects, have proven their ability to meet these design criteria and to more than satisfy today's functional, technical, and sustainable needs. Their use should be encouraged instead of discouraged.
Encouraging classical and traditional architecture does not exclude using most other styles of architecture, where appropriate. Care must be taken, however, to ensure that all Federal building designs command respect of the general public for their beauty and visual embodiment of America's ideals.
Certainly no one can argue that designs for civic buildings "should be selected with input from the local community." The debatable point, made pretty implicit in the order, is that Classical/Neoclassical is beautiful, Modernist and Brutalist are ugly and undignified. What say you?
-
o1Favorite This
-
Q9Comment
K
{Welcome
Create a Core77 Account
Already have an account? Sign In
By creating a Core77 account you confirm that you accept the Terms of Use
K
Reset Password
Please enter your email and we will send an email to reset your password.
Comments
As an architect I support this and believe that this should not be perceived as a political issue. I also believe that harmony and beauty are attributes that should be considered. I believe all types of architecture can fall short of these qualities. In particular civic architecture should be held to a high standard above others in its role of who it represents and its support to the context in which it is built. In urban contexts, the building should support and build up the community and not be just a signature piece of art. I believe it is much harder for Brutalist architecture to achieve these attributes, and the examples built so far have not been successful.
What I like in architecture, or consider 'beautiful" in it may not be the same as your ideals, even if you are an architectural professional. Nearly no architect ever paid for a building themselves, they work for clients with different needs and tastes, who hold the purse strings. in the case of public buildings (sorry, elite architects and Whitehouse officials) it really is up to those who will pay for and use the buildings - citizens who will use it, employees and contractors who will work there, etc. The architect's job is to find the best path to the best building while considering the many stakeholder's needs plus the economic and energy-use outcomes for public buildings. The Whitehouse has no business in prescribing the style of these buildings, they do not belong to the administrators, who are temporary leaders, theoretically in service to the people.
It’s not America if it doesn’t look like a Disney World x McMansion cliche with fake roof profiles and columns?
之前还以为懂王乱喷，说说而已，没想到离任前真签了啊。建筑师对自己作品能否被采纳的权重不高，哪哪都一样，特别是涉及公共建筑。若干年后各地都是“新古典”的市政厅，倒也算是Political heritage？ 统计学意义上的审美意义不大，或者说要真按照大多数人喜欢品味去营造建筑一定是建筑界的灾难。新古典和现代建筑，都是历史产物，不管你怎样赞成与反对，现代建筑的内核依然是“现代主义”的，哪怕你贴再多的“古典”元素，究其立场，“build for public”本身和古典、新古典就是相对的观念。
The only two tasteless buildings on this list are The Corpus Christi Federal Courthouse and Tuscaloosa Federal Building and Courthouse... these seem less like buildings and more like parodies.
Still no fan of Brutalism, but thanks to this great design podcast I do appreciate it more.
https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-smell-of-concrete-after-rain/
That said, ... I think this probably means Federal Government buildings should be build green :-)
Yes please! This is an excellent idea. No more concrete monstruosities built with tax payers money.
if that order had come from someone with any taste, or any brains, or motive besides wholesale corruption ... it might be worth discussion. the moment it comes from trump's brain ... you can automatically discount it, ridicule it, and assume it's an illegal way for him to steal money from