it’s a beautiful day but an ugly design that seems to play nicely into that whole “concrete facade” of 1984-like government.

Whew. Never again will I take the Capitol for granted. And I’m kind of bummed that the new generation of architects is still pursuing this style of faceless, unadorned, box buildings. This has been going on for 50 years, becoming more and more inhumane over time.

1. The Capitol was expanded in 1958-1962: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol#Expansion

2. House Office Buildings (HOBs) and Senate Office Buildings (SOBs – seriously, they call ‘em that) surrounding the Capitol are where a lot of Congressional business happens, and there have been a number of those built since 1911.

3. If memory serves me correctly, House Members felt in 1911 that if the size of the House grew significantly, it would be incredibly difficult to deliberate. (It’s already hard enough with 435 members!) Keep in mind, the original basis for the House was a mere 13 states and a much, much smaller population.

There’s no way the size of the House was limited by the available space in the Capitol.

It’s a thesis. The nature of a thesis is to produce educated speculation.

“US House of Representatives stopped growing in 1911 simply because the building couldn’t hold any more seat” are not my words, so you should direct that criticism at the OP.

As for the expansion of the building, I’m well aware of its history, including numerous expansions. For the most part, they’re detailed here (best if you view the original size).

You’re correct that the difficulties of deliberating among a larger group was one of the issues with expansion during the discussions in 1911, but there were other factors as well. Specifically, a large influx of immigrants in the previous census cycle meant that adding more reps would give more voting weight to those Representatives from immigrant districts. Apparently this was seen as something to be avoided.

There was also the persnickety issue of space. By 1911 the Capitol had undergone numerous expansions and reconstructions (remember the British invasion that burnt it to a crisp, for instance?) In particular, the seating arrangements of the floor of the House of Representatives were redone again and again with new furniture and tiering schemes, each time in an effort to fit more bodies in.

It’s my opinion as an individual who spent a year of intense study looking at the history of the US Capitol building that the most certainly is a connection* between the rapid expansion of the size of the House of Reps, the relative difficulty of reorganizing physical space in an overbearing building, and the ultimate decision to decline to expand the House of Reps membership.

*No one ever said it was causal… architecture is not a science.

P.s. The House and Senate have Office buildings? How did I miss that in my year of research?!?!?$%@#$%@

BB readers (or commenters at least) don’t tend to be the most sophisticated consumers of art and architecture. Experimental films and performance art are regularly excoriated here. The US Capitol is a nice enough building, albeit pallid compared to San Francisco’s much livelier City Hall. But if you think that modern architecture is just a bunch of boxes, take a gander at Brasilia.

i know boyer’s design goes far, but imagery is beautifully captured.
this is how we look. well designed, controlling, powerful, mean, combative and willing.
actually, i would suggest mr. boyer’s design to the the capitol of other countries. this is a prototype for contemporary government building.
i wonder if it will come in state sized versions? i don’t mind if the banknote is smaller for more local economies.
can you imagine arnold ‘governator’ schwarzenegger is doing it from a place like that?
california uber alles!

Evidently Clabber_Grrl tried and didn’t like it, but it also sounds like she got confused by a navigation chain that involves clicking on little pictures to make them big.

What I think is needed:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4e/Senate.jpg

What I think Americans want:
http://www.randysouders.com/souders2016gh.jpg

“BB readers (or commenters at least) don’t tend to be the most sophisticated consumers of art and architecture. ” well, speak for yourself mr. pork.

i do not intend that ALL modern architecture lacks soul, but, for the most part, it does. Sorry if your sophistication is sterile bottom-line oriented building practices. There might be cool looking huge shapes but not much more.In the end – they are still lifeless and sterile. Give me Gaudi or Greene and Greene any day over the pre-fab straighline box like sterility… blech.

It’s proof that Buckminster Fuller and Marshall Mc Luhan had sex!

I was responding really just to the post here without looking into the details of your project.

I certainly understand that your project is based on a thesis, but that’s what I take issue with. I can’t find the original utterance of the statement indicating that the “US House of Representatives stopped growing in 1911…” but it really just strikes me as an empty statement.

The Capitol building has grown since 1911, and the House chamber has enough space today for at least 535 bodies – enough to seat both the House and the Senate for joint sessions. The House is not seated directly under the dome any longer, which I think is part of your thesis as well – that the dome is just not large enough to seat all the members of the House.

Don’t get me wrong here – I love your concept and certainly understand that it’s a concept. There are some great reasons why the Capitol could use a redesign, but I’m not buying into the thesis.

Oh, I think that building is hideous. There are good and bad examples of every architectural style. Although I’m still waiting for the good example of Brutalism.

Check it out at – http://www.cafepress.com/yourthought/6059460