Federal Buildings Must Look 'Beautiful' Again: New Bill Mandates Classical Architecture and Puts GSA on Notice

The newly proposed Make Federal Architecture Beautiful Again Act aims to completely overhaul how the U.S. government designs and builds its federal facilities. Simply put, this bill mandates a major aesthetic shift, establishing Traditional and Classical architecture as the official, preferred style for new federal courthouses, agency headquarters, and any major federal building project costing over $50 million (adjusted for inflation starting in 2025).

This isn't just a suggestion; it’s a policy directive. The bill states that federal buildings must "command respect" and reflect the "strength, energy, and stability of America's system of self-government" (Sec. 3). For buildings in Washington D.C., Classical architecture is the default choice unless there are "exceptional factors" to justify otherwise. If you’ve ever walked past a gray, concrete block of a federal office and thought, 'That could use some columns,' this bill is for you.

The Bureaucratic Makeover: GSA Gets New Rules

To make sure this aesthetic preference is enforced, the bill puts the General Services Administration (GSA)—the agency that manages federal property—on a tight leash. The GSA Administrator must immediately update all policies to promote these classical principles (Sec. 5). This means a serious shakeup for the people who actually approve the designs.

First, GSA employees who review or approve designs must now have formal training or "significant, real-world experience" in classical or traditional architecture. Imagine needing a specific certification just to approve a blueprint. Second, the GSA must create a new senior advisor role dedicated solely to classical design. This could narrow the pool of qualified people in the GSA, favoring those with a specific, traditional background.

Design Competitions: Advantage, Corinthian Columns

For architectural firms hoping to land a contract, the rules of the game are changing. When the GSA holds design competitions, the bill requires them to treat classical architecture experience as a key qualification, giving it "substantial weight" in the evaluation process (Sec. 5). This means firms specializing in modern, sleek, or innovative designs—like those labeled as 'Deconstructivist' or 'Brutalist' in the bill (Sec. 2)—will face a significant uphill battle.

If the GSA does decide to approve a design that isn't the preferred style, like a building with exposed concrete or a fragmented look, the Administrator has to jump through major hoops. They must notify the President’s office (specifically the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy) at least 30 days in advance. This notification must include a detailed explanation of why the non-preferred design is justified, comparing its beauty and stability to similarly priced classical options. Crucially, they must also provide a full lifecycle cost analysis—covering construction, maintenance, and replacement—for both the proposed design and the rejected classical alternatives (Sec. 5).

The Real-World Trade-Offs

For the taxpayer, this bill introduces a few practical considerations. On the positive side, the policy aims for more distinguished, durable buildings that integrate local architectural history and involve the community in design choices (Sec. 3, Sec. 4). The focus on solid construction methods and dependable materials is a win for long-term reliability.

However, the massive procedural hurdle created for non-preferred styles (the Presidential notification and mandatory cost comparison) could lead to unintended consequences. It effectively creates a high barrier to entry for any design that deviates from the classical norm, potentially limiting innovation and increasing administrative costs and project delays. While the bill mandates cost comparisons, the intense focus on specific aesthetics might inadvertently drive up construction costs if the preferred styles prove consistently more expensive to build or maintain than other viable options. Taxpayers should keep an eye on whether the pursuit of "beauty" comes with a higher price tag and slower delivery times for essential federal facilities.