by Marcy Marro | March 2, 2020 12:00 am
In the last few weeks, the architecture and design community has been abuzz with news that President Trump is floating a proposed executive order that will rewrite the architectural guidelines for federal architecture, forever affecting the future design and construction of all federal buildings.
Known as “Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again,” the proposal is looking to rewrite the 1962 Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture to ensure that “the classical architectural style shall be the preferred and default style,” for new and upgraded federal buildings. The draft of the proposal, which was first obtained by Architectural Record[1], notes that the founding fathers embraced the classical models of “democratic Athens” and “republican Rome” for the capital’s early buildings because the style symbolized the new nation’s “self-governing ideals.”
According to the draft, the General Services Administration has failed to integrate “our national values into Federal buildings,” and specifically calls out three examples of recent buildings for having “little aesthetic appeal.” These include: the U.S. Federal Building in San Francisco (2007, by Morphosis), the U.S. Courthouse in Austin, Texas (2012, by Mack Scogin Merrill Elam Architects) and the Wilkie D. Ferguson Jr. U.S. Courthouse in Miami (2007, by Arquitectonica).
The reactions to the proposal came swift and strong. Many of the articles in response to the proposal argue that the original Guiding Principles, written by the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, note that an official style should be avoided, while new buildings should reflect their time. In doing so, the proposal defeats the original goal of design flowing from the architectural profession to the government, and not the other way around. It also goes against the guideline of avoiding excessive uniformity in the design of Federal buildings.
In a Washington Post op-ed[2] on February 10, Michael Lykoudis, dean of the School of Architecture at the University of Notre Dame, writes: “A proposal such as ‘Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again’ potentially reduces an entire architectural philosophy to a caricature. Arbitrarily pasting columns and arches on a building so it looks like a Parthenon-Colosseum hybrid is pretentious—and doesn’t make the building classical. Designing classical buildings for the modern age is a complex process, requiring knowledge of construction, world architectural history and urbanism, as well as aesthetic judgment.”
In response, the American Institute of Architects[3] (AIA) issued the following statement[4]: “The AIA strongly opposes uniform style mandates for federal architecture. Architecture should be designed for the specific communities that it serves, reflecting our rich nation’s diverse places, thought, culture and climates. Architects are committed to honoring our past as well as reflecting our future progress, protecting the freedom of thought and expression that are essential to democracy.”
Earlier this week, the former presidents of the AIA issued a letter[5] in response to the proposal, stating: “We strongly feel that the stipulation of a one-size-fits-all approach to building design would ultimately result in sub-optimal buildings.
“This is true whether the design ‘style’ is modern or classical. It is essential to embrace regional circumstances and culture. This investment should ultimately contribute to the evolving legacy of American life and liberty.
“Architecture is not only a visual art, it is a public art, which embraces public input and dialogue. Every community is free to establish its own cultural expressions through the arts. In multicultural communities, the diversity of these expressions is key to the perception of urban vitality and creativity in America (Example: the GSA Architecture Excellence Program where local context and local participation are essential to design parameters.)
“A mandate for neoclassicism, as proposed, will slow the national and community pace of progress and innovation.”
While there is currently no timeline on the table for this proposal, it will be interesting to see what happens next. With the strong reactions across the board, the idea of mandating a design standard for Federal buildings is saddening. Whatever the President hopes to achieve by forcing a classical design standard on architects working on Federal buildings will only repress the freedom of expression that currently exists in our nation.
Source URL: https://www.metalarchitecture.com/blog/a-new-federal-architecture-mandate/
Copyright ©2025 Metal Architecture unless otherwise noted.