The American Institute of Architects (AIA) has responded to President Donald Trump’s reinstated executive order demanding, among other things, that the General Service Administration (GSA) report to him within 60 days with a plan to reinstate the primacy of classically-inspired architecture in all new federal buildings.
One of more than two dozen new orders signed by Trump in his first days in office, his Promoting Beautiful Federal Civic Architecture remand, which offers a slightly toned-down version of an original 2020 signed order, promotes the notion of a restored American preeminence by advancing "regional, traditional, and classical architectural heritage."
The AIA letter says: "AIA is extremely concerned about any revisions that remove control from local communities; mandate official federal design preferences, or otherwise hinder design freedom; and add bureaucratic hurdles for federal buildings. AIA supports the GSA’s Guiding Principles, and we support freedom in design."
"AIA’s members believe the design of federal buildings must first be responsive to the people and communities who will use those buildings," it continues. "[We have] strong concerns that mandating architecture styles stifles innovation and harms local communities. The current Design Excellence Program at GSA, which is based on the Guiding Principles of Federal Architecture, achieves these goals and should be protected, not revised."
Back in 2020, the organization issued a similar response which cited the need for public architecture to reflect the richness of diversity and place across America.
That particular order was critical of styles such as Deconstructivism and Brutalism, a critique notably absent from the updated memorandum. People will know that Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in 1962 created the first Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture, which was supposed to shift the GSA away from mandating a "preferred style" in deference to creativity and artistic freedom.
The expectation now is that other organizations such as the ASLA and National Trust for Historic Preservation will issue their own rebukes as they had done so previously.
20 Comments
"AIA’s members believe the design of federal buildings must first be responsive to the people and communities who will use those buildings"
As an AIA member, I agree, but this is one of the ways don the con wins.
Buildings must certainly serve its spatial-function requirements. However, the stakeholders and context of place, time, and people is broader. What about the people affected by its development like the immediate community in the area. What about the people the federal building services. Sure, the federal government, its employees have a voice but so does the broader surrounding community. Designing and building such buildings even houses is a public / social act. It isn't just some private thing. Every building effects other properties and ultimately effects people and it isn't just the building structure itself.
Does the AIA understand what the Federal Government is?
If your 'local community' doesn't want the building, they should say so and the building and jobs should go elsewhere.
Well the law is written that any building to receive any amount of federal funding must comply with the classic architectural style. Try paying for any public building without some type of federal funding.
Wow, a client deciding what design they want. Outrage! You don't need to respond to every post here.
I don't have to respond, but when you post stupid stuff I will.
The federal government is made of many separate entities that do not oversee each other. If the client decides what design they want then the classic architecture requirement violates that.
Then there is the issue when a state organization gets a grant for say 10% of their project. If the client can choose their design style this again violates that choice.
Then there is the simple fact that all governments are supposed to be beholden to the views of people they govern.
See the flaws in your argument?
Eamez, we, the citizens, are the shareholders of the 'corporation" called the United States. Therefore, WE the people are THE CLIENT. The POTUS and the office BELONGS to us (as long as he remains in office) like the building. If he doesn't do the job and adhere to our rule... HE'S FIRED! (or worse if someone takes things a bit further than they should)
AIA committing own-goals again, as usual.
It should be said that modernism is now traditional, if language still counts. "existing in or as part of a tradition; long-established." Plus, in the approved style list, will there be a style czar picking what is sufficiently classical, pueblo, or byzantine? This is ridiculous.
Good comment, Thayer.
It's a crisis that the AIA or architects here can't explain what good design is. Instead it's just looking down from the high horse and complaining about the uneducated plebes and expecting the Federal Gov to do whatever the elites want.
Eamez: Please define "good design"
Eamez - please show us some of your 'good design'.
From Trump's speech:
"I hereby direct the Administrator of the General Services Administration, in consultation with the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and the heads of departments and agencies of the United States where necessary, to submit to me within 60 days recommendations to advance the policy 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."
Seems rather contradictory and hypocritical.
Good Design meets its function. He is telling you want he wants, as representing the will of the people. Identifiable civil buildings that are regional, classical, uplifting, beautiful, ennobling. Look at the Durrell Stone Embassy in India. Compare that to the new U.S. Embassy in Bierut, which looks like a giant slithering fortress. The later doesn’t command respect but fear and likely hate.
The new powers that be haven't defined "good design" themselves, not on any terms that are useful or meaningful. See my comments at the end of the other post, if curious.
The spokespeople (any women?) are quite literal minded, inflexible, and short-sighted. Imagine the position they have put themselves in, as well the architects who want to build for the nation. They will have to come up with specific standards: to be approved, buildings must not be too abstract, they must not be "brutal," they must have x columns in a, b, or c order, have direct reference to styles f, g, and h, and so on. And, heaven help us, they must be "beautiful." Their decisions will be arbitrary and superficial.
They will also miss the point of what makes classical and other traditional architecture engaging. Architecture, as a whole, will suffer.
And likely they will have a hidden agenda that won't fit any of us well.
Good Design isnt a magic formula. Its a value system. A respect for human scale, detail, composition, all the things architects are supposed to believe in but don’t. Because designers cannot articulate this, Populists point to classical architecture and traditional vernacular because much of modernism fails the test.
Chances are it's a diversion to draw attention away from plans to gut social programs and other things that benefit the public.
Yeah, this is kind of a low priority issue to me this time around.
More likely this is a front for the Heritage Foundation and similar, the goals of Project 2025, the attempts to restore "moral" order in the land. It gives concrete and lasting legitimacy to their goals—and cover for their narrow and simple mindedness and hypocrisy. These guys are organized and committed. Trump, I doubt, cares.
Gutting social programs, of course, is one part of their "morality."
Many find this style for a courthouse inappropriate, if not offensive. (It is curious and intriguing, and I can't decide. This one especially has to be seen in person.)
But what do they make of this blocky courthouse construction? It is RAMSA's recent addition to the Charles R. Jonas Federal Courthouse, built in 1915 (first as a post office)? Go to the top of Josh's post to see the original construction.
The original is a good representation of neoclassical styles of the time. (I say preserve it, but don't build like this now.) Really RAMSA's design has merits, and you see what he is trying to do, make a simple addition that doesn't upstage the courthouse in front. And it is traditional/classical, though in a very abstract way, more stripped down than the original.
But it just sticks out there, massive, obtrusive, and bland. The original would have been better highlighted and less upstaged by a design like Thomas Phifer's in SLC, something involved yet light and reflective, which would have better fit in with the modern buildings surrounding.
One way to remember the past is to provide contrasts and open dialogue, which is what a democracy is supposed to do. And a democracy should keep up with the times.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.