Ugly concrete blocks, relics from a bygone era, still dominate Washington, D.C.’s landscape despite a desperate need for architectural inspiration and community-friendly designs.
At a Glance
- A debate is raging over the future of Washington, D.C.’s Brutalist federal buildings.
- President Trump’s architectural directive calls for a return to traditional and classical styles for new federal buildings.
- Critics argue that Brutalist structures like the J. Edgar Hoover Building are ugly, oppressive, and costly to maintain.
- With the FBI and other agencies vacating these concrete buildings, their potential demolition is now a central topic of discussion.
A Mandate for “Beautiful” Federal Buildings
President Donald Trump has made his architectural preferences for the nation’s capital clear, championing a return to the traditional and classical styles that define Washington’s most beloved monuments. A White House directive, “Promoting Beautiful Federal Civic Architecture,” aims to end the construction of “ugly” federal buildings, taking direct aim at the polarizing architectural style known as Brutalism.
This executive push gives new hope to critics who have long argued that the concrete, fortress-like government buildings constructed in the mid-20th century are a blight on the capital’s landscape.
The Brutalist Blight
Brutalist architecture, derived from the French “béton brut” (raw concrete), flourished in the post-war era. Its massive, imposing forms and stark, raw concrete aesthetic stand in jarring contrast to the neoclassical elegance of much of Washington, D.C. As noted in a recent New York Post op-ed, buildings like the J. Edgar Hoover Building (the former FBI headquarters) and the Hubert H. Humphrey Building are seen by many as oppressive, alienating, and aesthetically offensive.
The Brutalist federal buildings that have blighted DC for decades deserve the same fate as Carthage after the Third Punic War. | @RichLowry https://t.co/B2L1RPpstD
— National Review (@NRO) June 30, 2025
The style is one of the most polarizing in modern history. “Brutalist architecture, with its massive concrete forms and raw aesthetic, stands as one of the most polarizing styles of the 20th century,” according to an analysis by Modern Home and Business.
The High Cost of Ugliness
The argument against these concrete behemoths is not just aesthetic; it’s also practical and financial. The FBI has already moved its headquarters to a new, modern facility in Maryland, fleeing the decaying and inefficient J. Edgar Hoover Building. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is also slated to leave its Brutalist home, the Robert C. Weaver Federal Building.
These buildings have aged poorly, with their raw concrete facades showing significant wear and tear. They are notoriously difficult and expensive to maintain and retrofit for modern technological and security needs, placing a heavy financial burden on taxpayers.
The ongoing exodus of federal agencies from these structures highlights their functional and financial failures. While some architectural preservationists argue for their historical significance, the growing consensus is that the cost of maintaining these unpopular and inefficient buildings is no longer sustainable. Their potential demolition now paves the way for a new generation of federal architecture designed to be beautiful, inspiring, and welcoming to the American people.
