A big debate starts to boil over federal building architecture

Tom Temin: And tell us briefly about the National Civic Arts Society. I keep thinking I’ve heard of everybody in Washington, but I haven’t.

Justin Shubow: Sure. So we’re a nonprofit headquartered here in the city. Founded in 2002, we promote the classical and humanistic tradition in public art and architecture. We look back to how the Founding Fathers consciously chose classical architecture for the design of the core buildings of government in the new nation, wishing to harken back to democratic antecedents in Ancient Greece and Rome and recognizing that the classical tradition is time-honored and timeless. And they inaugurated a tradition in federal architecture that lasted about 150 years and we wish to further and enhance that tradition today.

Tom Temin: And you conducted a survey that found that it seems like across the board, young, old, Republican, Democrat, male, female do favor that idea.

Justin Shubow: Yes. In 2020, we did a poll by the Harris Poll, a highly reputable nonpartisan surveying company, finding that the vast majority of Americans, 72%, prefer classical and traditional architecture for federal buildings and U.S. courthouses. And there were widespread majorities for tradition across all demographic groups: Gender, race, socioeconomic, and political party affiliation with 73% of Republicans preferring tradition and 70% of Democrats.

Tom Temin: Wow and what are we really talking about? I mean, you could say classic versus classical or two different things, but I’m kind of interested in this. And so do we mean Victorian Second Empire? Do we mean Beaux-Arts? There’s a federal style, neo-Gothic. I mean what are we taught in Renaissance?

Justin Shubow: So at the end of his first term, President Donald Trump issued a revolutionary executive order that reoriented federal architecture from modernism. It had been almost entirely modernist since after World War II, reoriented in a classical and traditional direction, saying that there should be special regard for those styles. The words classical and traditional were very broadly defined. So classical, for instance, included everything from federal to Neoclassical to Art Deco, idea being that the classical tradition is not really a style but is a paradigm for building. And traditional was likewise broadly defined to include Gothic, Romanesque, Pueblo Revival, Spanish Revival, things like that. So essentially any style of architecture prior to the advent of modernism.

Tom Temin: And modernism could be, you say, Bauhaus, which is quite beautiful in some people’s view. It looks almost classic now, but it was developed because of a functionality need of interiors that may have been coming into requirement that wasn’t there for earlier centuries.

Justin Shubow: Well, the Bauhaus didn’t have much direct influence on federal architecture since the Bauhaus really was first and foremost prior to World War II. But the modernist federal buildings that we’re talking about include brutalist and international style designs, designs that I think a lot of Americans do not find beautiful or uplifting or ennobling, the sorts of things that the executive order called for. And I should note that the executive order required that there be input from the general public when design decisions are being made. So if the public wants a Bauhaus design, it was not prohibiting that in any way. So it was to institute an element of democracy in a process where there is none. In 2023, the GIO issued a report finding that the current design process at the General Services Administration, the agency that oversees federal buildings, that process does not require public input and that this has led to all sorts of problems. And the GAO recommended that GSA change its policies and procedures to account for that. And Trump’s executive order did precisely that. And just to be clear, Biden rescinded the order almost immediately after taking office. But Day One of this new term, Trump issued a memorandum, essentially asking GSA to get back to him in 60 days with recommendations for changing policies to protect regional classical and traditional styles of architecture and also include a way to include input from the general public.

Tom Temin: We’re speaking with Justin Shubow. He is president of the National Civic Art Society. And we should point out you had a hand in the 2020 executive order. So this is something you’ve had an interest in for some time.

Justin Shubow: Well, we’re very proud that President Donald Trump began paying attention to this issue in his first term. And obviously, he’s a polarizing figure. But I think this is an issue that the vast majority of Americans can get behind. Americans’ favorite buildings in the country, many of them are classical buildings in Washington, D.C., whether it’s the U.S. Capitol, the Supreme Court, Jefferson Memorial and so on. There’s not much to debate, I think, that classical architecture is, for most Americans, the architecture of American democracy. And President Donald Trump recognized that and appeared to have his finger on the pulse of the American people and that’s why he took the action that he did.

Tom Temin: It sounds like though the provisions in the EO and what he’s asking GSA to do do allow for regionality, for lack of a better word. For example, in the Southwest, that setting, the light is different, the colors are different, a Pueblo-type of building could be appropriate. It would look terrible in the middle of New York City and maybe vice versa for an Art Deco-type of building or a classical building, a Greek revival type of thing would look out a place in the Southwest.

Justin Shubow: Oh, absolutely. I mean, the order explicitly defined traditional architecture to include regional styles. And I don’t think anyone would think that a Pueblo Revival building would make much sense if you’re putting a courthouse in Maine, say. But so, yeah, there was to be diversity in design, though, admittedly, the order was at its strictest regarding Washington, D.C., requiring that all new federal buildings in the city be classical. And we’re not talking about many new buildings. It’s not exactly as if there’s a huge building program in the United States, let alone in Washington. But one building that we have our eye on and I’m pretty sure President Donald Trump has his eye on will be what a new FBI building will look like in the city.

Tom Temin: Right. That building and part of the issue with those buildings is there’s no streetscape to associate with it. So if you’re walking on a cold windy day by the FBI headquarters now, you might as well be in Pyongyang. There’s no street traffic. There’s nowhere to duck in for coffee. It stands there like a prison in many ways.

Justin Shubow: Yeah, that’s a great point. A lot of these midcentury, these aging, brutalist buildings are not just ugly and widely disliked by the public and federal workers, they are examples of bad urbanism. And one building that we would love to see come down is the Forrestal Building, the Brutalist headquarters of the Department of Energy. It’s this massive super block that completely cuts off the National Mall from the L’Enfant Plaza area. And that building, representative of how badly aging these buildings are, requires $500 million in must-do maintenance and would require even more money to bring it up to Class A office space. I think very few federal workers want to work in a building like that or like the HUD building, which three different HUD secretaries have called 10 floors of basement.

Tom Temin: I’ve been in there too, it’s pretty bad.

Justin Shubow: Two of them Democrat, one of them Republican. And Sean Donovan, who was secretary under Clinton, said it’s one of the most hated buildings in the city and for good reason. And Julián Castro said it is like something from the Soviet Union. So there is bipartisan agreement that many of these federal buildings, these modernist buildings do a disservice to the people who work there and to the American people generally. And I’m hoping that we could start by tearing down the Forrestal Building and, in fact, even redevelop the Southwest Federal Center in Washington.

Tom Temin: Yeah, it could stand it in my humble opinion. What about, final question, the interiors of buildings? Because if you look at, say, a treasury, classic building, and it’s a handsome structure. The IRS is nearby there and there’s no streetscape really there, either, to be honest. But assuming that type of style, what about the interior? Because the interiors of those buildings served an early 20th and late 19th-century style of work. Long, long, long halls with dozens and dozens and dozens of doors, corporate entities and agencies don’t work that way anymore. So can you balance a modern technological interior with light and so forth with a classical exterior?

Justin Shubow: Absolutely. I mean, classical architecture can be adapted for any functional needs, different kinds of office layout and so on. And there certainly are some rare examples of new classical federal courthouses that are extremely functional and effective. So there’s no reason why classical architecture can’t be adapted. But I think what’s key is that those interiors be equally beautiful to the exterior to have ornament, to have art, not just art that is abstract. I mean, I’m not against abstract art per se, but it’s nice to have art that says something as opposed to just mainly evoke some kind of general feeling.

Tom Temin: All right, I’m going to end with a quiz for you. I’m going to quote a architecture critic who wrote ‘The building is a national tragedy.’ It is a cross between a concrete candy box and a marble sarcophagus in which the art of architecture lies buried. Who was the critic and what building was the critic talking about?

Justin Shubow: If I had to guess, I would say that that’s the original building of the National Gallery of Art, and the critic is Joseph Hudnut.

Tom Temin: Close. It was actually Ada Louise Huxtable of the New York Times commenting on the opening of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

Justin Shubow: Yeah, the joke about that is it’s the box that the Guggenheim came in.