Last week, Senator Marco Rubio and several Republican colleagues introduced a bill to require that new federal buildings be constructed in traditional architectural styles, particularly the Neoclassical style of many existing federal buildings, such as the White House and the Capitol. The bill exempts infrastructure projects, although frankly we would do well to ensure that our bridges are also pleasing to the eye to the degree permitted by the laws of physics.

Americans across the land have been blessed with naturally beautiful landscapes of great variety. We should not spoil them with ugly cities, and enforcing clear aesthetic standards for the buildings we collectively pay for will help set the tone for private construction. After all, public architecture serves a purpose beyond warehousing bureaucrats. Architecture is a particularly social form of art; it expresses and shapes a community’s view of itself. Soviet architecture’s dull grey concrete blocks were emblematic of a worldview that saw no value in tradition and no need to uplift the spirit. Visitors to our nation’s capital, as Rubio rightly pointed out, should not be subjected to similar sights. Nor should federal employees be condemned to use them — one might even hope that public servants would be inspired by their workplaces to do their best work.

Despite the protests of architects who have made careers of building in modernist styles, the general public’s taste is clear: A 2020 survey from the National Civic Art Society found that “traditional [architecture] was the clear winner for all demographic groups, including gender, age, geographic region, household income, education, and race/ethnicity.”

That said, I do have to quibble with one element of Senator Rubio’s argument for the bill. He cites the FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover Building as a particularly egregious example of bad federal architecture. I, on the other hand, think it presents an apt façade — “looming horror” is probably the correct response if you’re summoned to meet with the FBI.