Trump's Classical Architecture Directive

Earlier this year, the Trump administration rolled out a directive on federal building design. This directive aims to prioritize classical architecture over modern styles, sparking a lively public debate. Some architects have even compared this move to the actions of Hitler and Stalin.

In today’s newsletter, we’ll dive into Trump’s directive and explore how architecture reflects society’s values.

The directive, titled Promoting Beautiful Federal Civic Architecture, targets federal buildings costing over $50 million. It aims to "uplift public spaces" and represent the dignity of self-government.

This is an interesting topic because architecture visually represents what a society values. Classical styles have long symbolized democracy, stability, power, and grandeur, making them a natural choice for governments worldwide.

On the flip side, modernism stresses functionality, innovation, and efficiency. While both styles have their advocates, Trump’s directive has prompted Americans to consider which architectural approach aligns with their ideals today. 

Trump's advocacy for classical styles

Trump’s push for classical architecture goes beyond aesthetics. It aligns with his broader narrative of tradition and making America great again. He argues that classical designs can "uplift public spaces" and connect with America’s founding principles.

By favouring classicism, Trump taps into a sense of nostalgia for beauty and historical grandeur. He describes modernist styles as ugly and elitist, reflecting a design that lacks character and civic depth. This stance resonates with his goals of preserving cultural heritage and American pride.

However, this directive signals a major shift from past administrations that valued creative freedom in public design. Back in 1962, then-Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan introduced the Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture. This policy focused on quality and civic symbolism rather than a specific style.

Moynihan’s guidelines encouraged architects to create dignified and symbolic federal buildings, leading to a wave of modern designs. In contrast, Trump's directive proposes a preference for classical design standards, which many architects and organizations, like the American Institute of Architects (AIA), oppose.

They argue that such mandates stifle creativity.

So, what does the public think? A 2020 survey by the National Civic Art Society found that 72% of Americans prefer traditional classic styles for courthouses and federal buildings over modern designs. This shows a strong public preference for classical aesthetics.

Despite this preference, there's pushback against mandating classical styles. Democratic representatives have proposed the Democracy in Design Act, aiming to reinforce the 1962 Moynihan Principles.

This act promotes diverse architectural styles and includes community input.

While Trump’s order emphasizes a top-down approach to architecture, the Act supports democracy in design. This reflects a political divide in federal architecture.

The global perspective

Why do we see classical styles dominating government buildings globally? Classical architecture has roots in ancient Greece and Rome, the cradles of democracy. The symmetry, columns, and proportions symbolize stability and order are values central to governance.

The 18th-century revival of Neoclassicism fueled its popularity across Europe and the Americas. For instance, the classical designs of Washington D.C. were meant to connect the young republic to ancient democratic ideals.

These styles convey grandeur and permanence, making them the ideal choice for governments wanting to project authority. Many capital cities around the world embrace neoclassical or classical revival styles for similar reasons.

Moreover, classical architecture has aesthetic appeal due to its use of proportion, symmetry, and harmony. However, some critics point out that classical styles can feel exclusive and tied to authoritarian regimes.

Take Nazi Germany, for instance.

They adopted Stripped Classicism, a simpler version of classical design, to convey power and unity. Albert Speer's designs aimed to echo ancient empires and reinforce their ideals of dominance.

Similarly, Benito Mussolini used classical architecture to connect fascism with the glory of ancient Rome. In the USSR, Stalinist architecture symbolized communist supremacy. Despite these associations, classical architecture still appeals to many for its ability to evoke power, tradition, and civic pride.

Final thoughts

The debate over classical vs. modern architecture in government buildings reveals a tension between tradition and innovation. While classical styles represent stability and democratic ideals, modernists are advocating for more creative and adaptable designs.

What is your take? Should government buildings stick to classical designs or embrace modern aesthetics?

Share your thoughts by replying to this email.

If you would like to explore how I can help you with your interior design projects, I encourage you to schedule a FREE online consultation with me here.

Catch up with our latest blogs

Thanks for reading!

We’d love to hear from you. Please share your feedback, thoughts and suggestions by replying to this email.

If you are considering an interior design project, I’m offering a FREE 30-minute online consultation throughout January. Book your meeting here.

We are working to grow our reach. Please consider subscribing here and sharing this newsletter with your networks.

Stay inspired!