"... and instead favor obedience to a mandate from Washington? Or to explain that disagreements about architectural style speak to a healthy, democratic society in action? After all, there is no single style of architecture that represents nationhood — or that does not, and should not, provoke debate. The executive order borrows language from the 'Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture' that Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote in 1962 when the future senator was working in Kennedy’s Labor Department. Moynihan believed that federal architecture 'must provide visual testimony to the dignity, enterprise, vigor and stability of the American government.' The new proposal also refers to dignity, enterprise, vigor and stability. But it undoes the key principles on which, as Moynihan made clear, those goals depend — that design must 'flow from the architectural profession to the government, and not vice versa,' because expertise matters, and that 'an official style must be avoided.'"
From "MAGA War on Architectural Diversity Weaponizes Greek Columns/The Trump administration may impose a classical style on new federal buildings, a proposal aimed at the heart of modernism and diversity" by the NYT architecture critic Michael Kimmelman.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६३ टिप्पण्या:
Do Apprentice Style show for each building and let Americans vote.
It is kinda Nazi-ish. I guess authoritarians tend that way.
However, true Nazis would have taken over the schools by now.
MAGAites are slackers.
In my experience, the buildings that the architectural press praises the most tend to be pretty ugly.
BUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMer for Kimmelman.
"And does one really need to point out why it’s so rich of those who argue for states’ rights to argue against site-specific architecture, stylistically conceived to suit America’s diverse cultures..."
Whatever your belief about the proper scope of federal power, the structure is a federal building, isn't it?
Federal buildings.
I’m missing something.
It doesn’t step on states’ rights because it’s not a state building so the state, whose taxpayers are paying for said state building aren’t affected.
You want to build an ugly building, go right ahead. Commercial, residential, police, admin, be my guest. All he’s saying is if’s a federal building, it should follow a form.
How about we build government buildings that are cost effective and functionally efficient.
Then we make our government be the same.
It’s like living at The Dakota, there are rules.
Whatever your belief about the proper scope of federal power, the structure is a federal building, isn't it?
Right. It is a "brand" type of thing. The image of the company. In this case Federal Government.
McDonald's for example is a brand that you recognize immediately by the style of the building. The franchise locations are not all exactly the same...but the overall Branding is consistent.
Why shouldn't the Federal Government have buildings that are similar in style and immediately recognizable as a Federal building?
I will note that here across the river, in the smart growth, progressive utopia, walkable urban village of Arlington, where we have for 10-15 years now experienced an explosion of hyper-development, nearly everyone (except for developers and the County Regime) finds all of our new construction with 21st century architecture to be bland, boring, and soulless.
It's been a rough go, bu finally architectural academics are finally able to get in on the anti-Trump wave and finally restore credibility to their stodgy field by having him say something--anything--they can reflexively oppose.
Is the proposed new policy really an argument against "site-specific architecture?" And is "state's rights" really still a thing now?
It seems like much is left open to interpretation and the interpretaters tend to find ethnic and racial aspects that really aren't there.
An "anti-modernist" or anti-post-modernist" policy (if that's what this is) might be more likely to produce colonial architecture in Boston or Charleston, Spanish or Mexican architecture in Santa Fe or Los Angeles, something Polynesian or Asian in Honolulu, and something native American or cowboy western in Cheyenne or Phoenix. What we usually get nowadays are "site-unspecific" modernist or post-modernist buildings that are similar from city to city.
I don't know if I'm a fan of the new policy. Learning that 90% of everything - especially public architecture - is junk makes me skeptical that changes like this really change anything qualitatively or aesthetically, but the writer seems to be very far off-base here.
Blogger Seeing Red said...
Federal buildings.
I’m missing something.
...
Exactly my thought. Are people so blind to their anti-Trump rage, that everything is bad if Trump's name is anywhere near it?
If you ask me, all federal buildings should be gray concrete monstrosities (a lot of them are). But, it's up to the feds how their buildings are built, as long as it's not squandering on gold plated faucets, and then the money pocketed by the bureaucrats (which is what I'm sure actually goes on). But it's their job to build appropriate buildings, not my job to tell em how to do it (literally, no one is asking me, and quite rightly so).
Push trailers together and take them apart again when the government department is disbanded.
Over in Bezosville, our new Amazon Overlords are planning to fully embrace the hideousness of modern Arlington building design. See pics here.
Goodbye Arlington. Hello, Amazon.
At least the both start with “A.”
And end in “n.”
The Art Deco Nebraska State Capitol building is maybe the best of all state capitol buildings. I’ve been in Iowa’s, Wisonsin’s and Texas’.
I used to work across the street from the Federal Building in Philadelphia. It's a nice looking building. At the time, it was the tallest brick face building in the country.
Strangely, the brickwork was done by the Kelly family (think Grace Kelly) who were big Democrat pols in the city.
What Michael Kimmelman really is arguing for is architectural propaganda.
The image of local control over architecture to mask actual federal encroachment and control.
The two Nebraska federal courthouses are terrible on the outside. The Omaha one is plush on the inside.
I like the classical style, but in a time when government buildings house computers with data on all of us (or access to data on us) and other sensitive information, the most important thing in building design is making it hard for bad actors to access.
One or two sites reported that the Classical preference was for DC federal buildings, not all of them. Did the NYT say that?
Sounds like Mr. Kimmelman is all wee wee'd up---to borrow a phrase from someone who is no doubt his hero. But being all wee wee'd up about Trump is the price of admission for a writer for the New York Times, or New York Magazine.
The problem with architectural "statements" of whatever style is that the "statement" tends to live on long after the style is passe.
Architect John Portman was a big deal in hotel architecture in the 1960s and 1970s. His hotels had grand 8 or 9 story atriums--and they became a cliché. His Bonaventure Hotel in Los Angeles always reminded me of four silos in search of a leader.
There of course will always be other offenders against the public eye.
Trump knows how to pick his enemies. He can't lose going to war with modern architecture and its defenders.
This is a blog site I stumbled over several years ago. The guy has fascinating insights into the urban landscape(s) of America.
Sample: http://dirtamericana.com/2019/07/crystal-city-surprises-23rd-street/
I'd happy if the federal government was housed in well constructed pole barns in places like Waterloo, Iowa and Ogallala, Nebraska.
Trump isn't an Architect, but he has built a lot of things. As long has there aren't gold plated faucets, I see no issue with him influencing Federal Building design within reason.
I’m sorry, but the image of “weaponized Greek columns” is just too delicious.
How much of this response is directed at the actual content of the "imposition"? Or is the headline an accurate description of strawman hissy-fit content awaiting the reader in the article?
Is the new "imposition" really more restrictive of "architectural diversity" than the older mandate (or guideline or whatever it is), or is it just some opening up of options beyond the restricted (stultifying?) tastes of the lot in charge now?
Maybe if the experts hadn’t foisted so much crap on us, we’d be more inclined to depend on them.
"Whatever your belief about the proper scope of federal power, the structure is a federal building, isn't it?'
Until the coronation.
It's hard to make a good argument for the current system when it builds so many ugly buildings.
If there's one group we shouldn't be trusting with architecture these days, it's architects.
I've come to hate the words "diverse" and "diversity." They trigger me.
Obama was a big big fan of Greek Architecture, even styrofoam columns.
"because expertise matters"
Cliche's are the last refuge of a nincompoop.
In the case of public buildings, we are often talking about buildings, designed by those with "expertise," that are ugly, that leak, that are expensive or impossible to maintain, and with layouts unsuited to their function.
At the heart of a monotonically divergent ideology that is bent on diversity (i.e. color judgments) including racism, sexism, anti-nativism, and other Democratically favored sociopolitically congruent structures. Round and round.
However, true Nazis would have taken over the schools by now.
MAGAites are slackers.
So-called "MAGAites" tend to be right-wing and a wholly deplorable choice for a left-wing regime. Not "Good" at all. Although, if you venture to the extreme right, there is a left-right nexus, and some of them have adopted a secular faith, Pro-Choice religious/moral philosophy (e.g. "ethics"), diversity doctrine, and other elements of Naziism, Stalinism, Mugabeism, up to and including Maoism.
But it undoes the key principles on which, as Moynihan made clear, those goals depend — that design must 'flow from the architectural profession to the government, and not vice versa,' because expertise matters, and that 'an official style must be avoided.'"
The great theme of this mini-era in the history of America is that for many, many years, we gave experts a lot of authority over many aspects of governance and policy and our personal lives. Bureaucrats and regulators enjoyed broad discretion and deference from the elected government and the people. In civil practice, experts like lawyers, architects, doctors, enjoyed the respect of and deference from the average man.
And they fucked it all up.
They abused their discretion, gave junk advice, and -- in the case of architects -- repeatedly inflicted awful, anti-human, dystopian crap on the public.
Deference to the professional classes isn't automatic! It was always conditional on the professional classes doing a better job than the alternative (you know: politicians, councilors, ordinary voters!). They (we) were put in a position of responsibility, and squandered it.
There have been some bad consequences -- doctors really are better at advising people about health than hippies and fundamentalists who don't believe in vaccines. But if the professional classes wanted the public to defer to them, they shouldn't have tried to screw the public over.
This? When politicians deferred to architects, architects took advantage of that deference to rain garbage on the public. You'd have to be daft to think that was going to last forever.
Re: Mark:
Over in Bezosville, our new Amazon Overlords are planning to fully embrace the hideousness of modern Arlington building design. See pics here.
I was prepared to see something really sinister like this or this, but these are just glass boxes . . . kind of boring, but at least they don't look like a legion of Imperial Stormtroopers should be patrolling out front.
So, is Mr. Kimmelman deliberately lying, or illiterate?
For non-courthouse federal buildings that aren't in the National Capital Area, the draft explicitly calls for regionally-determined preferred styles -- excluding only Brutalist and Deconstructionist. Which means we might do all the federal buildings in Miami in Art Deco, and Denver in International, and LA in Bauhaus, and Pittsburgh in Gothic, and El Paso in Southwest, and Chicago in Usonian, and Honolulu in traditional Japanese, or whatever. Plenty of respect for federalism.
The draft only makes Classical the preferred architecture for the National Capital Area and for federal courthouses. And since it's only preferred, other styles are allowed, as long as they aren't (again) Brutalist or Deconstructionist.
The real major change is that the draft calls for public comment periods, and for panels made up of members of the general public, to provide feedback on the designs -- panels that explicitly exclude (among others) architecture critics. Which is almost certainly what's really chafing Mr. Kimmelman. The plebes get to decide what they like, instead of being told what to have by him!
There is no order yet, right? This is yet more fake news.
Dust Bunny at 1052am is right. there is "brand" issue. a citizen should be able to see an important federal gvt building and understand that it part of everyone's life and heritage. for example, the Parthenon or our own Capitol building.
2nd, if you put any specific brutalism gvt building proposal up for a vote it would probably get very few votes - indicating an unwelcome style imposed by elites upon those below.
also, as @wrathofgnon and others like him demonstrate, much has been lost, and much could be gained by striving to include old fashioned man-made beauty in our physical environment.
It's a sign of the true adept of totalitarianism ('everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state') in any of its forms when the arts, architecture, belles lettres, music, everything, is politics so far as he's concerned. I'm sure Mr Kimmelman doesn't hunt through his neighborhood making notes on his neighbors' subversive activities but, eh, who knows.
Ken B:
No order yet, no. There's a leak of a proposed draft of the order, posted at https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/19700169/Draft_of_Trump_White_House_Executive_Order_on_Federal_Buildings.pdf.
Read it and you'll notice that every single attack on the proposed order lies about the actual contents.
A summary, which will be entirely supported if you read it, is:
1) No more Brutalist or Deconstructivist federal buildings.
2) Classical the preferred but not mandatory style for buildings in the National Capital Area and federal courthouses.
3) Local preferred styles for other federal buildings.
4) Public input in comment periods and panels.
a proposal aimed at the heart of modernism and diversity
No, it's aimed at ugliness. And if you can't see the difference, or if you actually like ugly, then you shouldn't be designing buildings.
"We are the elect. We are artists. We have degrees in architecture. We should get to decide what gets built, not you peasants."
This controversy makes Ayn Rand's Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged all the more relevant.
Balfegor @12:49: Great comment. Somewhere along the line the understanding was lost that the only justification for any claim to elite status is to *be an actual elite*. That is, to be able to demonstrate real superiority in the execution of the task at hand. Not superiority in the possession of credentials or connections.
First out of school, I worked in the then "New Federal Building" in Albuquerque.
It was, hands down, the worst work environment I have ever experienced.
It was the result of an Eisenhower administration program whereby a local group (Republican, of course) would design and build to the Government's specifications, and the Government would then lease the building for 30 years at a fixed rate to repay the cost plus a "reasonable" profit.
I was told that at the pre-design meetings, the Architect would propose this that and the other, and the chairman of the local consortium would look at him and say: "But doesn't that cost money?"
"Ah, well, a little."
"So, we won't do that then."
And so it went. I was told that in the end the Architect would not allow them to put his name on the building plaque, but I never checked up on that.
30 years later, the Corps of Engineers moved out the day the lease was up, and an article in the Journal said that the space they had occupied had been deemed unfit for human occupation.
And that's how life really works out there, folks.
The proposal is not aimed at the heart of modernism and diversity because states, municipalities, cities, villages can put up the diversity and modern building next door, across the street, next block over to make their statement.
The former James Thompson Center was very modern. They boiled in the summer.... HVAC wasn’t well thought out.
I don't care what Federal buildings look like, I just wish they'd stop building stupid monstrosities that are nothing but some architect's vanity project!
Case in point; O'Connor Federal Courthouse here in Phoenix.
Here's a shot of the interior.
A big box with three sides that are all glass, probably designed by some idiot architect who never spent a day in Arizona.
I was on a Federal jury a few years back and asked one of the Marshals that work security how they stood it in the summer. He pointed to one of about five those huge portable A/C units they had positioned around the lobby and said; "That's how". I bet the electricity bill for that places is staggering.
This is one thing I really disagree with Trump on. It's a waste of political capital. Start moving more agencies out of DC, please.
Lurker2 said:
An "anti-modernist" or anti-post-modernist" policy (if that's what this is) might be more likely to produce colonial architecture in Boston...
***************
Which would be a vast improvement to the brutalist "Karnak on the Charles" they wound up building for the City Hall building.
https://tinyurl.com/vyepovg
I don't care what Federal buildings look like, I just wish they'd stop building stupid monstrosities that are nothing but some architect's vanity project!
Architects do not pay for their buildings. They have to first find a sponsor with lots of loose money whose ego they can stroke and convince will receive all the glory; the architect being but a worker bee.
Vanity projects are of course different, but for most buildings the architect's standard fee is 6% of the estimated construction cost, and for public buildings any "extravagant" features proposed by the architect will be quickly criticized as "gold plating the project to jack his design fee!"
a few years ago, there was this alien mothership, which wasn't even functional,
https://theclassicalreview.com/2012/05/miami-opera-house-flooded-due-to-faulty-drain-pipe-say-officials/
There’s no diversity in modernist buildings. They’re all ugly cubical concrete buildings with random holes, as if the architect can’t even design a proper cube.
Judging by the photo accompanying the article, the sort of architecture the author prefers is the J. Edgar Hoover FBI Building. I think, honestly, we have enough of that already. Reminds me personally of SUNY/Albany, which ISTR Ann writing about some time ago . . .
At UC/Berkeley, the building most universally hated for its architecture was Wurster Hall, which was (duh!) the home of the School of Architecture. As one of the tallest buildings on campus, though, it was celebrated for its views, which were said to be better even than the views from the bell tower, the Campanile. Because, the line went, when you went to the top of Wurster and looked out, you saw the Campanile, whereas if you went to the top of the Campanile and looked out, you saw, well, Wurster. (Evans, the math building, was the "other" really tall building on campus, and nearly as bad as Wurster, though less imaginatively so; also, it was practically next door to the Campanile. I always felt that the view from Evans' 10th floor balconies was the best on campus.)
There is a certain species of architect for which the scorn (that's the positive spin; the reality is more weary, harried acquiescence) of the public is a plus. The authors of public sculpture are much the same. I will never forget, a few months back, hearing a late-night NPR interview with Richard Serra that touched on the controversy over Tilted Arc (the Lincoln Center sculpture ultimately removed from the site after too many poor plebes complained about its increasing wind speeds and doubling the time it took to walk around -- rather than across -- the plaza that received it). He literally didn't care at all about what difference the great hulk of rusted iron made to the people who had to work with and alongside it. They were literal ants, bugs, well below his ken.
Trump doesn't know anything about architecture. The person who made his fortune putting up buildings. Big Beautiful Buildings, as he would put it. Of course his use of gold theme might be criticized.
Trump is many things but not an advocate for states' rights. The Times' writer apparently has him confused with proponents of sanctuary cities or something.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा