Promoting Beautiful Federal Civic Architecture

Background

During the brief period that it was in effect, the executive order on promoting beautiful federal civic architecture pursued a dramatic shift in the design of federal buildings. It required that new federal buildings adhere to a classical architectural style, unless an exception was warranted. This policy was intended to reject modernist architectural forms, labeled by the order as often unpopular or unappealing, particularly styles like Brutalism and Deconstructivism. The order reflected a preference for aesthetics rooted in classical antiquity, proposing that such forms better represent American ideals and civic virtues. However, it ignited a debate over subjective aesthetics versus evolving public tastes and the challenges inherent in imposing a top-down architectural mandate.

The General Services Administration (GSA), responsible for federal buildings' construction and design, found itself navigating new directives that compelled a reevaluation of ongoing and planned projects. The order mandated the GSA incorporate public opinion and regional styles into the design, ostensibly aiming to democratize the architectural process. In practice, this led to potential delays, as architects and planners were required to engage with public stakeholders more intensively, potentially slowing down project timelines and complicating design processes.

This order also implicated broader regulatory and logistical frameworks, particularly concerning the design review process. Agencies involved had to establish mechanisms for gauging and integrating public sentiment into the design phases. Without formal rule-making, the order dictated a preference that might clash with local architectural contexts or the intentions of federal projects. The inclusion of a President's Council on Improving Federal Civic Architecture further expanded the bureaucracy, although it remained a temporary entity. Nevertheless, these mechanisms' implementation was limited, with projects primarily in a conceptual or planning stage, given the short-lived nature of the directive.

Reason for Revocation

The revocation of the "beautifying" architecture mandate was a component of President Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s broader strategy to roll back several initiatives from his predecessor, Donald Trump. This was part of a broader governmental review aiming to dismantle policies perceived as ideologically rigid or inconsistent with the administration's priorities. Biden's approach has generally emphasized inclusivity, sustainability, and a more decentralized governance style, aligning federal policies with contemporary societal norms and values.

A significant factor in the decision to revoke was the perceived imposition of a narrow architectural mandate that conflicted with the administration's goals of diversity and innovation in federal projects. The Biden administration favored an architectural policy that encouraged creativity and adaptability, recognizing the broad spectrum of American communities and their distinctive histories and aesthetic preferences. This aligns with a broader ideological shift that prefers flexible guidelines over prescriptive rules, particularly concerning subjective matters such as architectural style.

The executive order's focus on classical architecture was seen as overly prescriptive and dismissive of modern architectural movements that address current environmental and social challenges. By revoking it, the administration opted for policies endorsing sustainability, functionality, and pluralism in architectural practice. These priorities reflect contemporary societal values more accurately than rigid adherence to classical forms.

The context of revocation was also politically motivated as Biden aimed to signal a departure from Trump-era policies perceived as exclusionary. In the realm of cultural policy, this decision communicated a commitment to equity, reflecting broader ideological shifts towards embracing diversity in public expression and federal endeavors. The revocation aimed to restore architectural diversity and creativity, encouraging federal buildings that reflect the diverse and evolving American landscape.

Winners

Architectural firms and practitioners specializing in modern or sustainable design stand to gain significantly from the revocation. The lifting of restrictions imposed by the executive order allows architects to explore a wider array of styles and technologies, which they can tailor to specific local contexts and needs. This could result in increased opportunities for firms that embrace innovation and pursue environmentally friendly design solutions, aligning with broader societal movements towards sustainability and resilience in construction.

Professional organizations within the architecture industry, such as the American Institute of Architects (AIA), likely view the revocation positively, having expressed concern that the original order undermined the creativity and professional judgment of architects. The AIA and other advocates of architectural diversity welcome a return to a policy framework that emphasizes context sensitivity and professional discretion, allowing designs that prioritize function and community needs over rigid stylistic criteria.

Communities where new federal buildings are planned may also benefit from a more inclusive design process. The revocation facilitates greater community engagement and input, enabling architectural designs that resonate with local cultural and historical contexts. This participatory approach can better reflect a community's identity, resulting in civic buildings that are seen as assets and sources of local pride rather than sources of contention.

Losers

Proponents of the initial executive order who advocated for a classical aesthetic in federal architecture may view the revocation as disappointing. Cultural conservatives who favor traditional design principles might perceive the decision as a repudiation of their values, suggesting that the government is dismissing an architectural style that they believe represents longstanding cultural ideals.

Institutions and individuals dedicated to the preservation and promotion of classical architecture may find their influence diminished in federal architectural projects. The shift away from classical architecture could lead to fewer commissions for specialists in this field, as modern or sustainable design approaches gain preference under the new policy framework.

The revocation might also pose challenges for stakeholders involved in nearly completed projects based on the guidelines set by the Trump-era order. These projects might now require reassessment or redesign to align with the Biden administration's priorities. Such changes could increase costs, extend timelines, and create logistical hurdles, impacting contractors and agencies involved in these projects.