Read on Twitter
Ok as someone who taught architectural history from neolithic to the 20th century I have thoughts on this and my thoughts are mainly: this is racist https://twitter.com/andrewfeinberg/status/1341061088729845765
This only namechecks styles considered “western civilisation” by people in the british empire in like the 19th century. When talking about beautiful public buildings, there’s no mention of chinese, japanese, indian, islamic architecture from the mali empire to iran, mayan etc >
Neoclassical, specifically, is the architecture of colonisation. It’s the style that reaches from plantations to the french in vietnam to the british in australia to the west coast of africa. Plus it’s a big feature of neo nazi meme about “reject modernity, embrace tradition”
The styles and buildings namechecked were built by slaves and almost require slaves to build. Like they require huge amounts of very detailed labor that would make them very expensive to build today at modern worker’s wages. Maybe this is intentional to make them hard to build.
Revival styles would also mean that only a handful of predominantly politically conservative architects would be able to design these buildings. Even someone like me, who has studied these styles, my construction experience means I don’t know how to build them w modern tech
This bill is also total facadism. And so far doesn’t say anything about traditional ideas of how space should be arranged. Like are you going to build a neoclassical building with an open plan office inside? I hope not.
A lot of these styles were designed to work without airconditioning, which is good. But if they slap neoclassical exteriors on modern interiors you are going to cause problems for heating, cooling, light, air.
Anyway. This is an architectural debate that’s from the 80s, like everything else with trump. It namechecks brutalism and deconstructivism (postmodern) but nobody’s built in those styles for 30 years.
(Also this is all 100% stylism, which isn’t really that relevant. Most architects don’t aim for a style conciously, they use what makes sense to make beauty. And depending on the era and construction methods, different things make sense).
I’ll end by point you to David Chipperfield, an architect who doesn’t design in a revival style but I feel really *gets* classical architecture in a way that informs his studio’s work: https://davidchipperfield.com
Also Wang Shu’s architecture is gorgeous, another contemporary architect tapping into tradition / vernacular without falling into it: https://www.archdaily.com/212424/the-local-architect-wang-shu
Oh yeah I forgot that this order would probably rule out most international architects from designing federal buildings. Why wouldn't you want something designed by Tadao Ando or Alejandro Aravena
If you want a really good history of architecture that will also teach you a bunch of history you never knew about how the world interacted prior to colonialism, I highly recommend D.K.Ching’s Global History of Architecture 3rd ed. https://www.booktopia.com.au/a-global-history-of-architecture-francis-d-k-ching/book/9781118981337.html
Oh yeah and I forgot the easiest dunk— this is what trump thinks of when he thinks neoclassical:
I want to expand a little bit more on the role of "Style" in architecture.
When humans see a building, we tend to instantly intuit something about the role of the building. Some of that intuition comes from instincts, & some seems to be learned from other buildings we've seen.
When humans see a building, we tend to instantly intuit something about the role of the building. Some of that intuition comes from instincts, & some seems to be learned from other buildings we've seen.
Architects can play into or against these expectations to depending on how they want the visitor to experience the space. There are roughly three levels:
1.Using materials, their form and construction to set a "mood" the user gets a sense of (a formal building, a playful one) etc
1.Using materials, their form and construction to set a "mood" the user gets a sense of (a formal building, a playful one) etc
2. A "decorated shed" ie. A building that has on it symbols that represent things eg. A courthouse with a statue of the goddess Justice on the front.
3. A "duck" - A building that is entirely a symbol of its role
3. A "duck" - A building that is entirely a symbol of its role
Using neoclassical architecture, for instance, can be all three: The actual forms of columns and a pediment are solemn and formal. Statues can evoke qualities, but also neoclassicism itself is a symbol that stands for political ideas, and represents philosophical eras...
... finally, people just tend to recognise "neoclassical building" as "government building" and in this way it is a duck.
In architectural school, there is a strong preference for using the first technique, because it is considered more universal and timeless. However, it runs the risk of making buildings less legible.
Using style to evoke cultural shorthand and symbolic meanings isn't wrong, per se, it can enhance the legibility of your buildings - but you are catering to the people who share the same understanding of that symbolic language.
And frankly, the meaning of neoclassical elements is incredibly contested. Sure, a pediment means "front door is here" but it also carries a lot of other connotations.
Having buildings that are both the product of a deep understanding of how humans use space, and also how they perceive meaning is important. Just as important is knowing what you want to say about the contents of the buildings. I want buildings that say more progressive things...
...than the buildings of 2000 years ago, or 300 years ago, or 30 years ago.
