For a glimpse into the future of design equity, look no further than today’s federal architecture

Emily Grandstaff-Rice: For me, it’s about recognizing that culture and what we define as good design changes over time. Historically, architectural style has been valued and driven by pedagogy or aesthetics. Through that lens, we weren’t looking at the larger picture. Design excellence is much more than what a building looks like or how it photographs. It’s about being proactive and having a common understanding about our values.  

From the AIA perspective, we look at it through the Framework for Design Excellence, which informs progress toward a zero-carbon, equitable, resilient, and healthy built environment. It asks questions like: How does your building perform and fit the users? How does it change over time? How does it account for equity and community beyond the client realm?  

For federal architecture, it has an extraordinary opportunity to show what we value as a society. It can also help push us forward in ways that private development doesn’t always think about.  

From the AIA perspective, we look at it through the lens of the Framework for Design Excellence, which informs progress toward a zero-carbon, equitable, resilient, and healthy built environment. It asks questions like: How does your building perform and fit the users? How does it change over time? How does it account for equity and community beyond the client realm?

For federal architecture, it has an extraordinary opportunity to show what we value as a society. It can also help push us forward in ways that private development doesn’t always think about.

Chuck Hardy: In recent years at GSA, “design excellence” has often referred to a building or modernization project that achieves high environmental performance, conveys a sense of welcome to users, and contributes to a local community’s understanding of its history and culture—all while projecting an image of the federal government as dignified, enduring, and efficient. But design excellence is defined differently in different places and eras. 

In light of that, GSA applies procedures overseen by our Design Excellence Program to its project pipeline. GSA continually refers our project teams and peer reviewers to the Guiding Principles of Federal Architecture as the benchmark of excellence. And, perhaps not surprisingly, that 1962 document is written in broad strokes that can be interpreted and reinterpreted according to the programming, technology, local community, and other issues relevant to any particular commission. 

Amy Blonder: For Perkins&Will, design was always an important part of our ethos. But when former Chief Architect of GSA Ed Feiner joined the firm in 2009, he brought the rigor around GSA’s Design Excellence Program with him. He founded the Design Leadership Council and implemented internal design awards, which involved a group of peer professionals reviewing projects and ensuring a cross-firm look at design excellence. These peer reviews are especially important in federal architecture to ensure that everyone is looking at design together as a collective. 

EGR: Public architecture can’t just be the ideas of those with privilege. It needs to be the voices of those who live with and interact with the building in their own communities. We also have to be flexible based on the cultural nuances in different locations.  

And when we usually talk about equity, it’s through the lens of community engagement. There needs to be moments where the people on the ground can see themselves reflected in the design, whether it’s through art, wayfinding, or communication.  

That also means that we can’t be so precious with our design, so that it can only be interpreted one way. A building needs to be flexible enough so the community can make it their own. It has to last and adapt.  

AB: I was thinking the same thing. When there is a new public building, be it a civic center or courthouse, it needs to be both of that time and timeless. Buildings with big white columns are not always the cheapest to operate, especially depending on where you live. So, I do think we need to consider what’s appropriate in operations, maintenance, and safety. Public architecture needs to be of the place.  

I also think universal design and neurodiversity is important because it’s about every single person. We need to be thoughtful about universal design because these design characteristics could affect any human. To me, that’s the essence of equity.  

CH: The GSA manifests public health, equity, and community simply by cultivating its continued leadership in sustainability. We’ve been a longtime leader in sustainable design and construction, and that culture has been supercharged by the Biden-Harris Administration’s vision of energy independence and planetary health.  

Sustainability standards are becoming increasingly rigorous as they expand from energy efficiency and resource conservation to encompass concepts like embodied carbon, healthy materials, and occupant productivity. As GSA pursues those standards, our buildings are in turn taking greater care of people. GSA’s sourcing is becoming more local, our materials are being considered for their community impacts both upstream and down, and our interiors are spaces of both health and safety. 

AB: Accessibility requirements in interiors! Public architecture is ahead on universal design. Everything has to be accessible, from Braille requirements, door handles, door swing—and not just in some rooms, but every room. Federal government employees know that no matter their physical ability, they won’t be challenged by the building. And universal design extends to those on divergent spectrums and with auditory challenges.  

EGR: Public and federal architecture work on different scales. With the reviews and the bureaucracy that’s embedded in the process in designing public architecture, there’s greater responsibility for us to push these issues.  

I see a movement among private development to reflect a longer-term investment and community impact through innovative financial partnerships. These projects can affect more than just the site. Thinking about the people and infrastructure impacts, we can really move the needle towards designing greater equity. Some developers invest in their community and are committed to ensuring their project lasts from day one to year fifty. I think finding ways in which we can celebrate that and incentivize that is how we start to embed the idea of longevity and timelessness into private development.  

CH: GSA’s method of inserting private-sector expertise at particular milestones in a project’s procurement and design is proven to be low-cost and high-impact. If you are governance-minded, you might liken our peer review to a check and balance. Another way to describe it is a system of moments for taking a step back and assuring the quality of a dialogue and its product. I cannot stress enough that design excellence can be effective without being expensive. Any organization could, and many have, adapted our protocols to their design quality-assurance efforts. 

CH: I see mandates and executive orders as opportunities for addressing challenges. They help keep us aligned with our stakeholders and the taxpayer. GSA has always positioned ourselves as leaders in the industry, and as some government-wide mandates and orders come through, they are in concert with what we are already accomplishing. In times like those we ask, how can we get better and continue to raise the bar?

EGR: One of the challenges I run into in education is gender-neutral bathrooms. Students and society are demanding them, but it’s hard to be innovative when there’s a cultural and a code barrier. I think in 10 years, we’re going to look back at this conversation with greater sensitivity. I was in architecture school right after ADA was passed, and it’s been interesting to see how the perceptions of it changed to it now being embedded in what we do.

While such systemic barriers can feel behind the times, it’s also on us to normalize what we see coming and how society is going to change. Give clients the research that shows that we’re actually future proofing their projects.

AB: I think we need to get beyond calling gender-neutral bathrooms and even lactation rooms accommodations; it’s just a standard. We’re not going out of the norm. We’re just meeting people with what they need. That’s law and code. In the end, the checks, reviews, and requirements to make things universally accessible are going to make better spaces.

CH: GSA abides by its own code, known as the Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Services (PBS-P100), which stresses performance more than it prescribes specific materials or details. So, I would reframe the statement that codes can be limiting. A performance-based document like ours, which defines a building standard at four levels, does not rebuff innovation or cultural expression. The PBS-P100 actually empowers project teams to expand the federal government’s horizons of what is possible.

EGR: We’re going to see more wellness rooms and sensory rooms. It supports the idea that we’re humans, not machines. The workplace or the federal building needs to support that as best that it can. At the end of the day, we want people to feel comfortable and be themselves in the building.  

CH: The future is bright for federal architecture! GSA is focused on optimizing and modernizing our portfolio and we look to both industry and agency partners to help co-create this future. The future of federal government architecture will support long-term requirements of our customer agencies with modern, safe, and sustainable high- performance buildings.  

We’ll continue to recognize and resolve these challenges and lead the industry in showing what excellence in design looks like and how there is a return on the investment, not only to the government but to the communities where we build and the people we serve. The creative problem solving that architects do is a heavy lift, but I firmly believe the industry and GSA is up to the challenge. 

March 2024: This page has been updated to reflect the end of Emily’s tenure as AIA president.