Make America Greek Again. Republicans' half-baked scheme to politicize architecture. (Page 1/2)
rinselberg JUL 08, 11:44 AM
"Republicans Want to Mandate a Single Style of Architecture in Washington"

quote
The Trump-era war against modern design in federal buildings is back — but now it’s in Congress


Michael Schaffer reports for Politico; July 7, 2023.
https://www.politico.com/ne...rchitecture-00104985


quote
Should America’s government decree an official national architectural style? Should the nation’s capital only have public buildings modeled on ancient Athens or Rome?

The questions swirl around a reignited culture-war battle over an unlikely Beltway institution: The General Services Administration, the resolutely unsexy government agency that manages federal office buildings, U.S. courthouses and other bureaucratic outposts.

GSA is the target of a new Republican-sponsored law that would declare “classical architecture” to be the “default” style for new federal buildings in Washington, and classical and traditional architecture to be the “preferred” style for most government buildings across the country.

Architects who trade in newfangled design-school fads should brace for a cold winter: Under the proposed Beautifying Federal Civic Architecture Act, introduced in the Senate by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and in the House by Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), blueprints “derived from the forms, principles, and architecture of Greek and Roman antiquity” would have the government’s official favor.

And any GSA functionaries who OK’d projects diverging from the default style would have to explain themselves to Congress and the president, leaving enough time to change back to the traditional look if needed.

Those functionaries would have a much freer hand under another bill currently before the House. The Democracy in Design Act, introduced by Nevada Democratic Rep. Dina Titus and endorsed by the American Institute of Architects, would enshrine in law a 61-year-old document called the “Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture,” created by a JFK-era panel under the leadership of future Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

In addition to a bunch of language about showcasing the best of contemporary architecture, the 1962 Moynihan document declared that “the development of an official style must be avoided.”

What’s going on here? How is it that legislators are introducing bills name-checking the likes of Michaelangelo and John Russell Pope and defining the verboten specifics of Brutalism and Deconstructivism? A newcomer just showing up in Washington might think it’s a pretty good sign of national health if sitting members of Congress have time to debate whether fluted Corinthian columns are superior to an unadorned modernist facade.

In fact, it’s yet another depressing story of polarization—one that traces its immediate roots to the Trump era.


That's how Schaffer's article begins. It continues from there for quite a ways—a longish article that approaches "magazine length" territory, and replete with many photographs.

I picked up on this from the July 7 edition of MSNBC's "Alex Wagner Tonight". It was the last few minutes of the hour-long show. I'd like to post the video, but I don't have it.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-08-2023).]

fredtoast JUL 08, 11:47 AM
If they pass this then all members of congress should be forced to wear powdered wigs, knee stockings, and pantaloons.
fredtoast JUL 08, 11:48 AM
Aren't republican supposed to me against government overreach and over-regulation?
82-T/A [At Work] JUL 08, 12:34 PM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

"Republicans Want to Mandate a Single Style of Architecture in Washington"
That's how Schaffer's article begins. It continues from there for quite a ways—a longish article that approaches "magazine length" territory, and replete with many photographs.

I picked up on this from the July 7 edition of MSNBC's "Alex Wagner Tonight". It was the last few minutes of the hour-long show. I'd like to post the video, but I don't have it.





I like a lot of different designs, but I'm not particularly fond of Brutalist since it's very Communist-esq. I understand why they want it, but I think it should likely be limited to places like the National Mall. A street or so off, and I personally think you should be able to pretty much do whatever you want so long as it meets safety requirements in design. I do think they need to maintain the building height rule though.
rinselberg JUL 09, 05:26 PM

Caught at the very moment she blinked (apparently), MSNBC's Alex Wagner looks either very bored or very sleepy in this frame, captured by the video camera, that would not have been perceptible in this way to the cable TV audience.

"Make America Greek Again" is an obvious play on Make America Great Again. This was the short segment at the end of the July 7 edition of "Alex Wagner Tonight" which gave rise (through me) to this indispensable forum thread.

A shame that the videos of these brief end-of-the-hour segments are seldom (if ever) available on YouTube or on MSNBC(.com).

There are no transcripts available for this program, and in fact, transcripts seem to be becoming a thing of the past for these MSNBC prime time shows.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-09-2023).]

WonderBoy JUL 09, 06:11 PM
Who the F cares?
All the money will mostly likely be kicked back to the same corrupt politicians who voted for it in the first place. All the sudden some new contracting companies will spring up outta no where. Maybe some of the contracts could go to diversity architects? Another f'd up sick first. The first gay lesbian nazi hooker p3d0 to construct a gov building in DC.

Homeless veterans, mental health of veterans who fought wars for the rich elitists and their globalist masters. Failing schools. Mass illegal border jumpers suck up tax dollars, cocaine snorting in the White powder house. But wait, stop everything, let's pimp up DC to compete with other countries capitols. Like a social media floozie competing for "likes" by 1upping their competition.

DemonRats playing SimCity again, they shall call it, Americonia...


This time, they go full Weimar.
BHall71 JUL 09, 06:19 PM
Not that I endorse this, don't really give a sh!t anymore regarding how your government chooses to decorate. But I do have to say that demoncrats have proposed, passed and processed WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more stupid things than this.


Brian
82-T/A [At Work] JUL 10, 12:57 PM
I guess what I would want to ask specifically is... what is this proposed law preventing? Are there specific building developments that people are trying to incorporate that would be rejected by this?

Incidentally... I'm really interested in architecture and follow a lot of people who deal with preservation of architecture in "old Europe." Specifically, a lot of European cities are trying to pass rules that are limiting the types of designs in old cities, such as Bruges (Belgium), or even parts of downtown Brussels, or Amsterdam, etc. So I can understand. There was an old Swiss town that I was looking at, and every building was the old classical style (name escapes me), and then suddenly this ultra-modern building which looked very out of place. Traditionalists in Europe find this kind of offensive, but the younger people don't really care.

I think having such a law in Washington D.C., within a certain mileage from the Capitol, is totally acceptable. I don't think you really see this in other places like New York and stuff like that.


For that matter, I grew up in Washington D.C., and the city holds a very sentimental place to me. My mom worked for the CIA, and my dad managed hotels. I grew up in a large hotel that had been built in the mid-1800s.




Point being... Washington D.C. holds a special place in this country, and is not really a "city" for corporations to exist, but more as one large landmark as the American's capitol. So it makes sense. There are a **** -ton of places throughout the "burbs" that they can do whatever they want... (and do)... all of which has equal access to subway systems, like all up and down the Dulles Toll Road, or in Bethesda, or Arlington, or Tyson's Corner... whatever... lots of places for big crazy-ass buildings.

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 07-10-2023).]

rinselberg JUL 10, 02:00 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
I guess what I would want to ask specifically is... what is this proposed law preventing? Are there specific building developments that people are trying to incorporate that would be rejected by this?


I have no problem with federal legislation to establish a preference for classical or Greek and Roman-derived architecture for new federal buildings in Washington DC, proper. I'm not familiar with the District, but I wouldn't want to see new architecture created that conflicts with the already established ambience of the Capitol Building, the National Mall and White House, and the closely surrounding area.

But what about a new federal building of some kind outside of Washington DC, and anywhere else in the 50 United States and territories?

I do not think there should be any encumbrances for such buildings to be designed in some other architectural style; a style, perhaps, that aligns more closely than the classical style with wherever the new building is going to be located.

That's what I think this law would do. It would be an encumbrance if—for a hypothetical example—there was local sentiment in Monterey, California, for a new federal building for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or a U.S. Coast Guard administrative building, to be architected with dark timber or faux-timber sidings and geometrically idiosyncratic window shapes, in order to project a casual, seaside ambience.

The reporting on it that I have posted makes me think that the contractors or project developers would have to jump over some newly imposed bureaucratic hurdles to have this, instead of a Greek or Roman-derived architecture. It would delay the construction and create needless additional expenses to be borne by the federal government, and ultimately, the federal taxpayers.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-10-2023).]

82-T/A [At Work] JUL 10, 03:14 PM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

I have no problem with federal legislation to establish a preference for classical or Greek and Roman-derived architecture for new federal buildings in Washington DC, proper. I'm not familiar with the District, but I wouldn't want to see new architecture created that conflicts with the already established ambience of the Capitol Building, the National Mall and White House, and the closely surrounding area.

But what about a new federal building of some kind outside of Washington DC, and anywhere else in the 50 United States and territories?

I do not think there should be any encumbrances for such buildings to be designed in some other architectural style; a style, perhaps, that aligns more closely than the classical style with wherever the new building is going to be located.

That's what I think this law would do. It would be an encumbrance if—for a hypothetical example—there was local sentiment in Monterey, California, for a new federal building for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or a U.S. Coast Guard administrative building, to be architected with dark timber or faux-timber sidings and geometrically idiosyncratic window shapes, in order to project a casual, seaside ambience.

The reporting on it that I have posted makes me think that the contractors or project developers would have to jump over some newly imposed bureaucratic hurdles to have this, instead of a Greek or Roman-derived architecture. It would delay the construction and create needless additional expenses to be borne by the federal government, and ultimately, the federal taxpayers.



OOOH... ok, I was not aware that this applied "across the board" to all Federal buildings in the United States. Do we know that to be the case?

A Greco-Roman building in Utah perhaps wouldn't make a lot of sense... but the Federal Courthouse in Dallas, TX is of the Roman-esq style, and it's kind of in the theme of that old Government "Federalist" architecture.

I'd be interested in a summation of this law... because I think it makes sense to some degree, but if we're talking all buildings, then it just doesn't make sense. Like for example... are you going to build a missile silo out in the sticks in an approved Federal architecture style?

Or maybe this has more to do with maintaining some standards? Government / GSA has committed to building things that are LEEDS compliant and meet certain green / energy efficiency as well. I don't know if that's part of it... but certainly could be.


The other thing I am curious about, is potentially cost. Having one "style" of development could usher in an era of government construction... that's more cost effective. One of the problems we see is Government spending a **** -ton on some buildings, and shitting on others. Like the CIA headquarters for example... was build during a time that the government had a ton of money... so solid marble throughout the entire building... they even brought in a super-fancy designer (Euro Sarinen or whatever his name was), the guy who designed Dulles Airport.

Meanwhile, other defense buildings have crappy stamped concrete entrances. Or then the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which has an entire SOC designed by Disney, or the new cyber center which looks like the bridge of the Starship Enterprise x10... there seems to be an outlandish amount of money being spent on some buildings, and not in others. Maybe it's to limit this excess and conform to a single style. I could be swayed either way... if it's to limit government waste, I think that's good. But marble columns on a post office in Kansas doesn't make sense either.