A Look at the Executive Order on Promoting Beautiful Federal Civic Architecture

I am going to present you with images of two different buildings in downtown Portland, Oregon. The first is a photograph taken of the Pacific Northwest’s oldest federal building, the 1869 Italianate style Pioneer Courthouse.

Separated by a few blocks and just over a century, the following photos are of the Portland Building, the city’s administrative offices, built in the Postmodern style in 1982.

Both of these buildings are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, and yet the public reception to them has been – and remains – very different. The Pioneer Courthouse is put forward by many as a fine example of classical architecture, while feelings on the Portland Building, though mixed, have been decidedly more negative. So much so that eight years after its construction, The Oregonian apparently reported that “it’s hard to find anyone who doesn’t like Pioneer Courthouse Square…. it’s even harder to find anyone who admits to liking the Portland Building.” Well then I guess I had better keep my errant opinion to myself…

Wherever you land on the matter, these two buildings serve as a handy illustration of a much larger issue at play in the architecture world – the so-called “style wars” that have been simmering behind the scenes between the Traditionalists, or Classicists, and the Modernists. I previously explored this professional rivalry in a post on the late Sir Roger Scruton, who was a staunch defender of traditional architecture. It was during my research for that post that I first came across the current issue at hand – an executive order that could open the doors to a federally mandated architectural style.

A return to the classics

In February 2020, news was leaked of a draft executive order entitled, “Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again.” It chronicles that up until the 1950s, the federal government was in the business of erecting buildings in classical and traditional styles. Portland’s Pioneer Courthouse is listed as a “beautiful and beloved” example of such. These monuments have become “international symbols of democratic self-government” and “universally cherished landmarks.” But, it continues, such designs have been largely abandoned in favor of mid-century modernism styles like the much-maligned, concrete-loving Brutalism. And with the 1962 creation of the “Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture,” “classical and other designs known for their beauty” were even implicitly discouraged, resulting in decades’ worth of federal buildings described as ranging from the “undistinguished” and “uninspiring” to “inconsistent with their surroundings” and “even just plain ugly.”

Bearing in mind our Founding Fathers’ love for classical Greek architecture, the draft order makes an appeal to return to the oldies but goodies – “it is time to update the Guiding Principles to make Federal buildings beautiful again.” America, it seems, has had it with ugly architecture. The order closes by pronouncing that “Federal architecture should once again inspire respect instead of bewilderment or repugnance” and that “classical and traditional architectural styles have proven their ability to inspire such respect.”

As you might imagine, this news was not well received among the architectural community. Opposing voices like the American Institute of Architects and Docomomo, as well as a smaller faction of supporters found in the likes of the City Journal and the National Civic Art Society (or NCAS, a nonprofit that helped draft the order), rushed to express their condemnation or praise. Speculation as to whether the draft order would even become official policy was laid to rest on December 21, 2020, when former President Trump issued the newly minted “Executive Order on Promoting Beautiful Federal Civic Architecture.” As it remains to be seen what the present administration’s stance will be, or even if the action might be reversed, the order as it currently stands, as well as its implications, bears continued discussion.

A preferred and default style

As the debate has quietly waged on for the past year, the arguments for and against a “default” federal style have been made time and again by others more qualified to speak on the matter than I. As such, I won’t be taking those points on in too much detail here, other than to sketch a very brief outline of the opposing positions. Suffice to say that those in favor of a default style invoke America’s heritage of drawing on classical forms and appeal to popular opinion, pointing to a recent poll commissioned by the same NCAS that drafted the executive order (go figure), which shows that a majority of Americans prefer traditional over modern architecture for courthouses and federal office buildings. Meanwhile, those against a default style argue that such a position would stifle architectural innovation and limit diversity in the built environment, with some even drawing parallels with authoritarian regimes throughout history that have venerated classical architecture while promulgating anti-modernist rhetoric.

There are compelling arguments on either side, though, as I said, I don’t endeavor to expand on those further. Rather, I would like to examine the issue from a slightly different take, primarily through the lens of aesthetics and the problems that arise around defining standards of beauty. To do so, we must first take a look at what the executive order actually says. Let’s start with the more innocuous:

“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.”

All fine and good aims. In fact, I think you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who would not agree that civic architecture – and architecture more broadly – should strive for beauty and endeavor to uplift the spirit, all while accounting for and involving local groups. But what kind of buildings might satisfy such lofty mandates? Fortunately, the order tells us: “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.”

It is not within the realm of this discussion to investigate whether or to what extent these claims can be supported, but it would seem that for our purposes, we might reasonably accept at face value the suitability of traditional architecture for meeting both the aesthetic and practical needs of our modern society. Of course the question remains as to whether it is the only type of design capable of doing so. Before following this line of thought any further, I’ll take another quick aside to define what we mean, or what the outgoing White House understands, by classical and traditional architecture:

“‘Classical architecture’ means the architectural tradition derived from the forms, principles, and vocabulary of the architecture of Greek and Roman antiquity, and as later developed and expanded upon by such Renaissance architects as Alberti, Brunelleschi, Michelangelo, and Palladio; such Enlightenment masters as Robert Adam, John Soane, and Christopher Wren; such 19th-century architects as Benjamin Henry Latrobe, Robert Mills, and Thomas U. Walter; and such 20th-century practitioners as Julian Abele, Daniel Burnham, Charles F. McKim, John Russell Pope, Julia Morgan, and the firm of Delano and Aldrich. Classical architecture encompasses such styles as Neoclassical, Georgian, Federal, Greek Revival, Beaux-Arts, and Art Deco.”

Traditional architecture is subsequently described to include classical architecture, as previously defined, as well as “the historic humanistic architecture such as Gothic, Romanesque, Pueblo Revival, Spanish Colonial, and other Mediterranean styles of architecture historically rooted in various regions of America.”

So far so good. I myself am an ardent fan of traditional forms in architecture and recognize their potential for great beauty. Put me in front of an Art Deco skyscraper or a Gothic church and I get positively giddy. But what of other styles? Might modern or contemporary buildings achieve a similar standard of beauty, refinement, dignity? Unlikely – is the answer given by the White House. As we saw from our study of the draft order, modernist buildings are not up to the task, “unappealing” and “controversial” as they are, while visibly clashing with any surrounding classical architecture. Of the modernist derivatives (and there are many) Brutalist and Deconstructivist seem to be the most reviled, singled out throughout the order as being ugly and highly unpopular across time and place. They may perhaps occasionally impress “the architectural elite, but not the American people who the buildings are meant to serve.”

So while it dismisses modernism as a candidate for achieving the high standards of beauty required of federal architecture, the order stops short of outright prohibiting the use of such styles, stating instead that, “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.” Further still, within the District of Columbia, “classical architecture shall be the preferred and default architecture for Federal public buildings absent exceptional factors necessitating another kind of architecture.” The full scope includes the following areas: 1) all federal courthouses and agency headquarters, 2) all federal public buildings in DC, and 3) all other federal public buildings that cost or are projected to cost more than $50 million to design and build.

One might then naturally ask what these “exceptional factors” allowing for non-classical designs might be. Unfortunately, no answer is given, but the order goes on to establish the President’s Council on Improving Federal Civic Architecture to preside over such cases, whose directive it is to notify the president within 30 days of a proposed design for “a new applicable Federal public building that diverges from the preferred architecture… including Brutalist or Deconstructivist architecture or any design derived from or related to these types of architecture.” This notification must include a detailed explanation of why “selecting such design is justified, with particular focus on whether such design is as beautiful and reflective of the dignity, enterprise, vigor, and stability of the American system of self-government as alternative designs of comparable cost using preferred architecture.”

The problem, defined

It is here that we run into the thorniest part of the matter. We have learned that classical and traditional architecture, with strict exception, are to be the default style for all federal architecture falling within the aforementioned criteria. This is so because these styles have been determined to be the most beautiful and suited to embodying our abstract democratic ideals. And who has deemed them thus? The White House, which has set forth these vague standards and established a committee to judge the aesthetic merit of proposed designs according to them.

This not only presents problems of defining and applying subjective criteria like beauty and dignity to building plans, it precludes non-traditional styles of architecture from being considered, absent a doubtless onerous process in which it must somehow be proved that the design’s beauty is equal or superior to that of a classical design with similar specifications, all things constant. This begins with the assumption that modern architecture is not (and can only exceptionally be) beautiful and puts it at the disadvantageous position of starting from a place of inferiority from where its aesthetic value must be measured against a category of architecture already judged its superior.

The issue runs deeper than problems of subjectivity and taste, however. The order isn’t just calling out modernist buildings as being ugly and inharmonious. By extolling traditional architecture’s embodiment of all that is good and democratic and American, and lambasting modern architecture as not befitting the dignity demanded of a federal civic building, the order damns modernism to committing not only the sin of being un-beautiful, but un-democratic and un-American. In a word – bad. Further evidence of this is made apparent in a statement issued by NCAS president Justin Shubow one day after the executive order was issued:

“Americans have long understood that classical architecture is not only beautiful, it embodies the key values of our representative government. Such distinguished and inspiring buildings connect us to our heritage, and are associated with the continuity, equality, and openness essential to a functioning republic. The design of federal buildings should reflect the aesthetic and symbolic preferences of the people they are built to serve – namely, classical and traditional architecture. Yet since the mid-20th century, Modernist mandarins controlling government architecture have been forcing ugly designs upon us. On Friday, President Trump stood firm for tradition and beauty in public architecture, and for the heartfelt desires of the American people. The National Civic Art Society applauds President Trump for signing this Executive Order, and we look forward to seeing the beautiful buildings that will now become part of his legacy.”

Without our even realizing it, Americans have been subjected to the machinations of an elite body of radical architects undermining our democratic values and destroying our cities with hideous concrete buildings. And here I thought bad design was just bad design. This kind of outlook effectively attributes everything that is right and upstanding to traditional architecture while assigning everything that is wrong and subversive to anything that does not fall under that umbrella. The problem in doing this is articulated by critic Ian Volner, who invokes architecture theorist David Watkin’s warning that “to promote or denigrate a style ‘on supposedly ethical grounds’ is to confound ‘moral principle [and] aesthetic preference.’”

These things are categorically different. A building may be condemned on aesthetic grounds as a failure – unsightly and ill-conceived – but a moral failure? Perhaps, if through negligence or ill intent in its design or construction its inhabitants come to harm, that might be called an ethical failing on the part of its architect or engineer. But a building does not commit a moral offense by simply being a blight on the landscape. Likewise, I might prefer traditional architecture to modern or vice versa, or maybe I have an equal appreciation for them. Whatever my preference, I am not wrong or evil compared to someone with an alternative position. It is, quite simply, a matter of taste, not character.

Similarly, a neo-Georgian courthouse may be constructed gracefully with an appealing stateliness, or it may fall flat in its design, reading as boring, uninspired, and bland. The same is true of, for instance, a Brutalist courthouse. If well-executed, it might provoke feelings of awe and intrigue, and it may even do so beautifully, albeit in a way that is different from the beauty of the neo-Georgian building. Conversely, it too could come up short, looking wrong or out of place and engendering confusion and distaste. The point is that neither traditional nor modern architecture is a single coherent, homogeneous block. There are wide-ranging variations and interpretations across both and in either there are examples of good, bad, and mediocre. There is no one bulletproof formula to assuring a good or beautiful building. As The New York Times architecture critic Michael Kimmelman puts it,

“…taste changes and style, by definition, is the most superficial criterion for evaluating architecture. Buildings, like people, deserve to be regarded and judged individually. Context matters. Failure happens sometimes, as with anything meaningful in life. Adding Corinthian columns or Palladian windows to a federal courthouse or embassy guarantees nothing about whether a building works for the people who use it, nor does it testify to the dignity, enterprise and vigor of the American government. I can’t begin to list all the traditional buildings in America that I find uplifting and beautiful. But Greek columns and Italianate windows don’t make a building look more American to me.”

I would argue that a diversity of architectural styles is exactly what makes so many American cities vibrant and interesting. Beauty exists in many and varied forms, and while not every building is or can be beautiful to every person, there are qualities beyond beauty alone that are worthy of our admiration. Buildings that are striking, monumental, awesome, or even abstract, strange, challenging can also inspire and command respect while helping us find beauty and value in what is perhaps the unexpected and unfamiliar.

It is true that federal buildings play an important and central role in embodying – both physically and symbolically – our system of government and national ideals, and as such their design should be befitting of such tenets. But the notion that traditional architecture is the only avenue by which this may be done is tired and false. Likewise, beauty, as critical as it is to our experience of the environment, should not always be the single and highest standard to which we hold our buildings. Instead, let the best design, whatever its tradition, that is best suited for its particular site, context, and needs take the day. Even if that means the neo-Georgian courthouse wins over the Brutalist design more often than not, at least all options were considered fairly and weighed according to their individual merit. Now what’s more democratic than that?