Search

In 1964 the American Institute of Architects (AIA) launched a competition to redevelop its headquarters at the Octagon Building (1801) in Washington, DC. The Kennedy Administration had recently reset the direction of Federal architecture and committed to new legislation to protect the historic environment. But while the government embraced architectural modernism in this period there was uncertainty about how architects should relate new buildings to existing cities. This paper examines the competition-winning entry by Mitchell/Giurgola and the design review process that unfolded in its wake. Doing so reveals competing aspirations for the site and professional disagreement about how new and old buildings should be related in such situations. The paper argues, however, that forces beyond architecture, notably urban land value and the responsibilities of the profession to its members, crucially shaped the outcome, depriving Washington, DC of an exemplar for how contemporary architecture could engage with valued existing buildings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]