I’ve been there a couple of times. its really cool looking inside.
There are many beautiful examples of classical architecture in both DC and across the country and which feel appropriate for the time they were created. I don’t think we need more though and I prefer new buildings reflect the contemporary architecture of their construction.
They want to add this addition to a famous hotel in down town Ottawa people are outraged.
I think it looks better in this light:
https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g60713-d6534810-Reviews-San_Francisco_Federal_Building-San_Francisco_California.html#photos;aggregationId=101&albumid=101&filter=7&ff=97665545
I dunno. Still looks pretty ugly to me.
As I go from place to place and see all the buildings and architecture…it’s easy to spot buildings where the money spent building them…was not their own. Government buildings are way over the top. If you drive along I-77 through Charleston, West Virginia…you parallel a river, then go under a bridge and drive along side the city. Looking up ahead, there’s a big dome that looks as though it was made with real gold. It’s stupidly over the top and done this elaborate because…it’s paid for by tax money. I know it’s a silly dream but I wish government was not so wasteful with the money collected in taxes.
cough cough Clinton library cough
There is the 1970’s Florida Capitol Building.
Lets just say it has a resemblance to, something. 
The original Capitol Building was in front and was to have been torn down upon completion of the new building. The then Secretary of State of Florida refused to move his offices out of the building until the Legislature appropriated money to turn the Old Capitol Building into a permanent museum.
The architecture of the main building is actually decent. The location of the wings containing the legislative chambers was unfortunate and the choice to use round domes on top was very unfortunate.
But the main building is fine.
Why do you feel that way? What informs your appreciation of architectural design?
I don’t mean this as a criticism of your tastes. I just want to know why you, and some people in general, feel that modern design is somehow less valid, and less beautiful, than design that draws on ancient precedents.
Have you read Tom Wolfe’s book “From Bauhaus To Our House”? It’s an interesting take on the forces that created, and sustain, modern architectural design. Tom Wolfe’s analysis is wrong, but worth exploring.
I disagree with the AIA. There are plenty of buildings and opportunities for architects to play with, our governmental establishments should reflect a greater combined history and symbolism. When you start going down the road of “specific communities” there’s going to be someone offended. Let’s take NY for instance, do we design gov’t buildings, those that are to open and welcoming to all cultures and climates, which culture and climate do we design to? And what happens if, in the future, that “climate” is now considered offensive by someone? Tear it down and revamp it every decade? What if that gov’t building is designed and someone feels it’s too much like a church, and they are an atheist, are they going to feel welcome entering that building? Or if it’s fashioned with hindu gods are there those who are going to feel offended by that? 3 years ago, I may have agreed with the AIA, however in today’s climate with historical objects being deemed offensive, cultures coming in and out of favor and the vocal minority looking for their slice of the victim pie and living the life of rich women’s problems, I can see far too many issues with the AIA’s tenet and belief that somehow their ability to design gov’t buildings will be allowed to protect freedom of thought and expression in the face of what has been going on in our country.
The government shouldn’t control the design of government buildings?
I disagree with the AIA wholeheartedly. Government buildings should be as simple as possible with no aesthetic appeal whatsoever. They should not be a reflection of anything except function and simplicity at the lowest possible cost. They are places to be avoided and to spend as little time in as possible.
Those aren’t containers, they’re house trailers.
Then you are agreeing with the basis of the AIA’s position. Having government dictate buildings be “classical” in style will cost more, not less. Government should not be in control of design, or of art. Government has no place in determining what style is acceptable.
That smacks of authoritarianism.
Government has no place in determining government buildings.
Do you like the idea of government dictating style?
Working 6 months in the Hoover building a few years back made did me want waffles every day, and waffles are certainly beautiful!
And if anyone wants to see a bit of top shelf DC inefficiency, check out the FBI HQ search process that took place throughout the 2010s 
It features thousands of hours of vendor time developing bids, years of research and planning, and a beautiful new facility in…oh wait - nope, still at the Hoover waffle iron.
I have not read that book, but I will certainly take a look.
I don’t have a blanket object to “modern” design or any other “period” design.
My objections are much more focused to SPECIFIC design choices. I find the specific design choice used on the San Francisco Federal Building to be horrible and entirely inappropriate for a government building.
If somebody wants to design private buildings that way, that is of course fine, private builders should have complete freedom.
Government buildings should be built primarily with utility and efficiency in mind. External design should result in a building that blends decently with the buildings around it.
The should not be going for an “avant garde” appearance, regardless of style.
I don’t insist on ANY specific style, just one that works for wherever the building is located.
As for my personal taste in architecture.
The above house was direct inspiration for my own new house in North Carolina.
I like simplicity of design and a subtle quality that I can best enunciate using the term “quiet elegance.” I don’t like extravagance of design, but prefer simplicity. As for styles and periods, I can deal with many of them, if they fit into the above qualifiers.
Madison is going through it’s own construction boom and lately I only get to check on it during the holiday season, but it’s always been one of my favorite seats of govt. Of course being built on an isthmus doesn’t hurt.
Of a government building? Yes.
