Evening star., 1963-05-08
Blending BUILDINGS

These remarks are not in
tended to be either for or
against the plan for Federal
Office Building No. 5 (article
and architects sketch in The
Star of April 18). More de-
tailed information would be
needed to enable anyone to
visualize the building COM
pletely and to arrive at a
definite opinion as to its
merits.
The apparent dilemma of
the Fine Arts Commission
suggests that an answer is
needed to this question:
Should Federal buildings in
the future be built in the
classical style that has been
traditional ever since the
Capitol and the White House
were designed? Or should
new styles be adopted, with
the stipulation that they
harmonize with that of the
existing buildings? Or should
architects be given a free
hand to design buildings
without any obligation to
bring them into harmony
with the present buildings?
Few will disagree with the
Presidents suggestion that
future Federal buildings
should "embody the finest
contemporary American
thought" 1t may be well to
examine briefly what the
finest American thought
with respect to architecture
in Washington may be.
1t has in recent years be-
come fashionable to criticize
the public architecture of
Washington as being "imita-
tive" or "derivative." While
it may be admitted that it is
not strikingly original, it
must also be said that the
whole history of the classical
style is one of imitation. If
the dome of the Capitol was
an imitation of the dome of
st. Peters in Rome, so was
st. Peters an imitation of
the ancient Pantheon "a
simplification, but it illus
trates the point.)
The present Government
buildings are going to last
a long time, so we might as
well make up our minds to
appreciate the good qualities
which they have.
1t would seem that thought
full contemporary American
architects will not ignore the
beauty and comparative unity
of the present architectural
picture of Washington, and
will not, for additional build
ings, suggest designs that
would antagonize the old.
There are elements in mod
ern architectural thinking
that are valuable and pro-
greSsive, and there seems to
be no reason why they could
not be applied to future
building projects here. The
idea Of functionalism is good,
if it does not lead to designs
that are too sober and un-
imaginative for buildings
that should have a monu-
mental character. And the
experimentation that must
accompany any evolution is
good, II 1t does not lead to
designs that are too wild or
capricious.
Classical and modern archi-
lecture are not necessarily
incompatible. Modern archi-
lecture can be designed in a
classical spirit. The classical
spirit may be defined. or at
least suggested, by such
words as serene, elevated, Or
derly, well-balanced. In the
American cultural back
ground, as in that OF all
Western nations, there is
much that is classical, and
1t would not be unnatural for
Americans to give the CLASH
cal spirit a modern archi-
tectural expression.
The new buildings might
be different from the old
ones, from an engineering
point OF view and in outward
appearance. There may be
no columns. friezes or pedi-
ments. But II seems reason
able TO expect that, having
been conceived in the same
spirit. the new designs will
be In harmony with the old.
and that the general char
acter Of the city will be pre-
served.
rI.a.A.. LII.