The United States, like much of the world, is going through a period of transition. I have no direct experience of the country beyond a visit to Chicago many years ago, and what I learn through friends or the news. I therefore speak not as an expert on America, but as a historian of architecture observing how architecture and politics have always been connected.
In this role, I recently contributed to an article by journalist Eleni Sabani in Kathimerini newspaper, for which I am truly thankful.
The piece discussed a new government order stating that all federal public buildings in Washington, D.C. should be designed in the classical style of ancient Greek or Roman architecture.
In that discussion, I reflected on how an architectural style created to express the needs of its own time — such as nineteenth-century neoclassicism — can, when revived today and removed from its original context, lose its meaning.
It can easily become a stage set rather than a civic symbol, often moving toward exaggeration or kitsch.
In the nineteenth century, across Europe and the United States, neoclassicism was closely tied to the ideals of ancient Greece and the Enlightenment, as well as to the search for a shared identity founded on openness, freedom, and democracy.
A notable example is Berlin’s Museum Island. In Greece, neoclassicism became a key part of shaping the country’s modern national identity, with emblematic examples such as the National Archaeological Museum and the „Trilogy“ on Panepistimiou Street.
By the twentieth century, however, this symbolic link had weakened, and neoclassicism was often used by authoritarian regimes. A clear example is the Municipal Market of Kypseli in Athens, originally designed as a modern industrial building but later modified under the Metaxas regime to include neoclassical details.
In the twenty-first century, neoclassicism largely returns as imitation without genuine content.
The new order fits with the rhetoric of the current Republican administration, which seeks to „make the country great again“ — a return to an idealized past while distancing itself from the meaning of Washington’s postwar modernist buildings.
Whether this decision will influence the evolution of architecture remains to be seen. If it stays as a purely aesthetic choice, its impact may be limited. If not, the stakes are different.
The relationship between architecture and politics remains alive — a lasting conversation between the unknown new and the familiar old.
Check out the final article on politics and architecture by Eleni Sabani in Kathimerini, for which I was interviewed:
Kathimerini, OCtober 2025