One of the many things that Trump has already signed since reentering office is a memo directing the General Services Administration to come back to him within 60 days with recommendations on how to make Federal public buildings in the US look a certain way. More specifically, the memo states that, "Federal public buildings should be visually identifiable as civic buildings and respect regional, traditional, and classical architectural heritage in order to uplift and beautify public spaces and ennoble the United States and our system of self-government." This is something he initiated during his first time in office, with a draft order called "Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again," and so let's break this down -- specifically some of the words chosen for this memo.
Firstly, what exactly is classical architecture? Generally speaking, it is architecture that is based on and derived from the design principles of classical Greek and Roman architecture. Think the European classical period between the 8th century BC and the 5th century AD. And it is true that much of the early Federal architecture following the American Revolution did follow these principles. That's because, at the time, the US didn't have its own architectural language to represent the values being espoused by its founding generation. So what they did was say, "hey, we want to somehow represent democratic and republican values, so let's just borrow from previous and existing design precedents." Here, one could argue that Europe innovated and the US copied.
So what this memo is saying is that the US should go back to this Federal-style of architecture. This is clear. But at the same time, the word regional is used. This implies that the classical architecture to be built in DC can and should be different than the classical architecture to be built in Los Angeles. Does this mean that local Federal architecture will be free to respond to local climates and with local materials so long as the end result is something that still speaks to Greek and Roman values? For example, could a Federal building in California have deep overhangs that block out the sun during the day and allow for passive cooling/ventilation in the evenings? I'm not sure.
Then there's the language about self-government. This is what the US is built on -- individual freedoms and liberties. And so I find it incredibly ironic that, here, we have memo saying that all Federal buildings should be designed and built using basically a singular approach to architecture in order to lend dignity to the values of individual freedoms. In other words, "we want every building to look the same or similar so that it shows how much autonomy we allow and how little intervention there is from external authorities." Wait, shouldn't it be the exact opposite? Rather than ennoble the United States, it feels anti-American. Let local communities and architects decide what is regional and what is appropriate, and get out of the way.
This week it was announced that US president Joe Biden has revoked a number of Presidential Actions, one of which is Executive Order 13967 -- Promoting Beautiful Federal Civic Architecture.
Signed on December 18, 2020 by former president Trump, the order, which I wrote about last February, encouraged the use of "classical and traditional architecture" for all federal buildings.
Part of the argument was that too many buildings are being made for only architects to appreciate. This includes, you know, modern architecture and styles like brutalism.
Well that order has been revoked and that means that "beautiful" federal civic architecture is now free to be anything it wants. Look to the past, look to today, and/or look to the future.
This is the way things should be.
What is the right way to do heritage preservation? How should you approach an addition to an existing building? I was reminded of this topic this week, which then reminded me of a post I wrote last summer when this issued flared up in Ottawa because of the "Chateau Laurier battle." The takeaway from last year's post was this: "We cannot recreate the past, only parody it." Indeed, the Province of Ontario maintains that "legibility" is an important principle in the conservation of built heritage properties. People should be able to distinguish the new from the old. Don't blur the distinction.
I will also say that in architecture school they instil in you the ideas that buildings should be honest, they should reflect the current milieu, and that materials should be truthful. What this loosely means is that you want to use materials where they are most appropriate and you want to reveal their true nature. Don't pretend that things are something they are not. i.e. Don't be fake. At the same time, I very early on learned that most people don't give a shit about the kind of nuanced and theoretical discussions that happen within architecture schools. They like what they like.
And there's a big segment of the market that wants buildings to look as they did a long time ago. They want tradition. They want historic. Or they at least want some sort of "transitional" style that sits somewhere between old and kind of new. They want architects like Robert A.M. Stern and Richard Wengle, both of which are extremely popular and talented. So really, who am I to judge? As most of you will know, I'm a modernist. I am more interested in the future than I am in the past. But I recognize that the past is important and should not be forgotten. How best to do that is up for debate.
One of the many things that Trump has already signed since reentering office is a memo directing the General Services Administration to come back to him within 60 days with recommendations on how to make Federal public buildings in the US look a certain way. More specifically, the memo states that, "Federal public buildings should be visually identifiable as civic buildings and respect regional, traditional, and classical architectural heritage in order to uplift and beautify public spaces and ennoble the United States and our system of self-government." This is something he initiated during his first time in office, with a draft order called "Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again," and so let's break this down -- specifically some of the words chosen for this memo.
Firstly, what exactly is classical architecture? Generally speaking, it is architecture that is based on and derived from the design principles of classical Greek and Roman architecture. Think the European classical period between the 8th century BC and the 5th century AD. And it is true that much of the early Federal architecture following the American Revolution did follow these principles. That's because, at the time, the US didn't have its own architectural language to represent the values being espoused by its founding generation. So what they did was say, "hey, we want to somehow represent democratic and republican values, so let's just borrow from previous and existing design precedents." Here, one could argue that Europe innovated and the US copied.
So what this memo is saying is that the US should go back to this Federal-style of architecture. This is clear. But at the same time, the word regional is used. This implies that the classical architecture to be built in DC can and should be different than the classical architecture to be built in Los Angeles. Does this mean that local Federal architecture will be free to respond to local climates and with local materials so long as the end result is something that still speaks to Greek and Roman values? For example, could a Federal building in California have deep overhangs that block out the sun during the day and allow for passive cooling/ventilation in the evenings? I'm not sure.
Then there's the language about self-government. This is what the US is built on -- individual freedoms and liberties. And so I find it incredibly ironic that, here, we have memo saying that all Federal buildings should be designed and built using basically a singular approach to architecture in order to lend dignity to the values of individual freedoms. In other words, "we want every building to look the same or similar so that it shows how much autonomy we allow and how little intervention there is from external authorities." Wait, shouldn't it be the exact opposite? Rather than ennoble the United States, it feels anti-American. Let local communities and architects decide what is regional and what is appropriate, and get out of the way.
This week it was announced that US president Joe Biden has revoked a number of Presidential Actions, one of which is Executive Order 13967 -- Promoting Beautiful Federal Civic Architecture.
Signed on December 18, 2020 by former president Trump, the order, which I wrote about last February, encouraged the use of "classical and traditional architecture" for all federal buildings.
Part of the argument was that too many buildings are being made for only architects to appreciate. This includes, you know, modern architecture and styles like brutalism.
Well that order has been revoked and that means that "beautiful" federal civic architecture is now free to be anything it wants. Look to the past, look to today, and/or look to the future.
This is the way things should be.
What is the right way to do heritage preservation? How should you approach an addition to an existing building? I was reminded of this topic this week, which then reminded me of a post I wrote last summer when this issued flared up in Ottawa because of the "Chateau Laurier battle." The takeaway from last year's post was this: "We cannot recreate the past, only parody it." Indeed, the Province of Ontario maintains that "legibility" is an important principle in the conservation of built heritage properties. People should be able to distinguish the new from the old. Don't blur the distinction.
I will also say that in architecture school they instil in you the ideas that buildings should be honest, they should reflect the current milieu, and that materials should be truthful. What this loosely means is that you want to use materials where they are most appropriate and you want to reveal their true nature. Don't pretend that things are something they are not. i.e. Don't be fake. At the same time, I very early on learned that most people don't give a shit about the kind of nuanced and theoretical discussions that happen within architecture schools. They like what they like.
And there's a big segment of the market that wants buildings to look as they did a long time ago. They want tradition. They want historic. Or they at least want some sort of "transitional" style that sits somewhere between old and kind of new. They want architects like Robert A.M. Stern and Richard Wengle, both of which are extremely popular and talented. So really, who am I to judge? As most of you will know, I'm a modernist. I am more interested in the future than I am in the past. But I recognize that the past is important and should not be forgotten. How best to do that is up for debate.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
