The Trump Administration may soon order that all new major federal buildings look like 21st century renditions of Greek temples or the U.S. Capitol. But a new bill from a Democratic Congresswoman could head the Administration off at the pass.

The news first came out in February that Donald Trump and his Administration were going to order that all new federal government buildings be designed in the classical style as a “preferred” default. Immediately, the American Institute of Architects (AIA), the National Association of Minority Architects, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, many other groups, architectural firms, architects, historians, and others galvanized in opposition to a looming order by the President.

Now, they have at least one advocate in Congress, who has introduced a bill that would override any such executive order. On July 13, U.S. Rep. Dina Titus, a Democrat who represents Nevada’s First Congressional District, introduced the Democracy in Design Act. If adopted, the legislation would supersede any Executive Order that would dictate the classical style, or a very limited choice of traditional styles, as preferred for all new federal buildings. This would include new courthouses and government agency headquarters; any new structures in the National Capital region like a museum; and federal buildings that will cost more than $50 million. In effect, the federal government would take away a real choice by architects of the style and needs relative to purpose and local community. Trump’s order would be very constraining.

Earlier this year, the Chicago Sun-Times broke the story of this edict in the works, obtaining a copy of the seven-page draft Executive Order the Trump Administration was preparing to declare. The order would decree that new buildings look like ancient Greece, Rome, and Europe or the Capitol’s Classical buildings of many decades ago, as the Sun-Times noted. (See the Mindfulwalker.com article fully delving into the issue, “Trump’s Bid To Dictate Architectural Style.”)

The COVID pandemic and economic hardship have understandably dominated national and much international attention. Still, the AIA and others have kept track of this draft order and recently received confirmation that the White House may soon issue a final Executive Order. In anticipation of this action, Rep. Titus on July 13 introduced the Democracy in Design Act (H.R. 7604), the AIA confirmed. The following day, the measure was referred to the House Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management. This subcommittee, which Rep. Titus chairs, oversees the General Services Administration (GSA) and other federal buildings.

MAGA in Design?

“Our public buildings should reflect the rich diversity of our nation and its people,” Rep. Titus said in introducing the bill. “They should signify our progress over the years and be as accessible as possible.”

This bill would ensure that design and acquisition of federal buildings would adhere to the Guiding Principles the federal government first laid out nearly 60 years ago. These 1962 guidelines stated that in its federal buildings, the United States government should avoid dictating a national style and should “embody the finest contemporary thought.” Working as a GSA staffer for the Administration of President John F. Kennedy at the time, Daniel Patrick Moynihan (later a U.S. Senator from New York) wrote in the Guiding Principles report that “Design must flow from the architectural profession to the government and not vice versa.” The Kennedy Administration, as in its pursuit of space travel, aimed to be forward-looking.

No other Administration has sought to dictate the architectural design of federal buildings. In doing so, the Trump Administration order is taking aim not only at the Guiding Principles that flow from the architectural profession but an integral part of the government’s effort on design, construction, and preservation: the GSA’s 1994 Design Excellence Program. This program melds the approach of design that expresses the government’s stability over time with a range of present-day approaches, sustainable design, and private sector peer review. The Trump order would nullify this with a one-style-fits-all starting point that all new federal buildings should be of a Classical style, or a limited choice of traditional design, such as Romanesque or Spanish Colonial. However, the new Congressional measure would codify the Design Excellence program into law and guarantee that the federal government remains neutral on architectural styles.

“Re-Beautification”

The draft Executive Order, entitled “Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again,” pronounced beauty in new government buildings as looking like those of Ancient Greece or Rome, or in the U.S., like the U.S. Capitol Supreme Court, or 19th century and early 20th century neoclassical structures. The Trump Administration, in its draft, excoriated the Design Excellence program, bemoaning modernist styles, maintaining that the program has resulted in unattractive buildings, and singling out for derision works such as the U.S. Courthouse in Austin. The draft order also would shrink the role of architects in the design and construction of new federal buildings. Instead, it would establish a President’s Committee for the Re-Beautification of Federal Buildings, with political appointees.

The Oklahoma City Federal Building

As the public first saw the Trump Administration draft Executive Order in February, those opposing it – architects and other design professionals, architectural associations, design publications, instructors in architectural schools, and critics – marshaled their opposition in letters, statements, articles, and op-eds. from. Under the AIA’s letter-writing campaign, people sent out some 11,400 letters to the White House condemning the draft order. Those opposing it see the order as a regressive approach that personifies an authoritarian impulse, ignores the varied purposes of new federal buildings and local communities’ needs, and minimizes the work of professionals, in the same ways the Trump Administration has done with scientists and others. They have pointed to works of the Design Excellence program such as the National Museum of African American History and Culture (2016) and the Oklahoma City Federal Building (2005), which the federal government constructed to replace the office building lost in the 1995 terrorist bombing that killed 168 people.

Advocates of thwarting Trump’s architectural edict will push now to get Rep. Titus’s Democracy in Design Act passed. Its prospects are uncertain, but those against Trump’s architectural dictate believe that they must stop it in its tracks. The AIA is urging people to write to their members of Congress and encourage them to co-sponsor H.R 7604, the Democracy in Design Act.

“Mandating any single design style will undermine the value of the very architectural style it seeks to promote,” said AIA President Jane Frederick in a statement released by the group. “Buildings – both functionally and aesthetically – must be designed to serve their populations. It’s critical that communities have the ability to decide for themselves what architectural design best fits their needs.”