The Politics of Brutalism in DC
Could architecture be having an influence on White House actions?
Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s 1962 Report to the President by the Ad Hoc Committee on Federal Office Space, which was adopted as guiding principles by the General Services Administration, recommended against an official architectural style for federal office buildings.
As a result, and as the federal government expanded in the 1960s and 70s, Washington added numerous brutalist buildings by leading architects that have become icons of that architectural movement.
Trump's executive order, which he revived on his first day back in office, mandates that federal buildings in Washington, D.C. and elsewhere should prioritize the "classical architectural style." This order aims to "beautify public spaces" by emphasizing designs that align with regional heritage and American classical traditions, all according to the White House's website.
Brutalism is certainly not a favorite architectural style for a lot of people, especially Trump. But is not up to any one to make a call on which architectural styles are better than others. Is it simply a coincidence that multiple federal departments or agencies with Brutalist-style headquarter buildings are now being targeted for closure, significant reductions, or to be moved out of town? I wonder if they all might be fairing better if their headquarters were classically Greek or Roman in design.