Starchitect Designs Excel in Functionality
False Assumption: Avant-garde green architecture by elite starchitects like Thom Mayne creates superior, employee-friendly federal workplaces despite unconventional designs.
Written by FARAgent on February 10, 2026
In the late 20th century, modernist architects like Thom Mayne gained fame for radical designs that rejected traditional functionality in favor of symbolic gestures against corporate America. Mayne, a 1960s radical, built structures like the CalTrans building in Los Angeles and the 2009 Cooper Union in New York, featuring random windows mimicking IBM punchcards to mock Big Business. Federal agencies adopted this approach through programs praising innovative design.
The San Francisco Federal Building, designed by Mayne and opened around 2007, became a prime example. Lauded by the New York Times as a potential crowning achievement of the GSA's Design Excellence program, it featured no air conditioning or heat, wavy floors, and elevators skipping floors to force exercise. Employees endured extreme temperatures, used umbrellas against sun, and crammed disabled elevators; a 2010 GSA survey ranked it last nationwide at 13 percent satisfaction.
Criticism grew via employee reports and surveys, prompting Trump to issue an executive order in 2020 against such poor designs, later rescinded by Biden but reinstated. While architectural elites still celebrate Mayne's work, mounting evidence from worker complaints and low ratings questions the assumption, with calls to demolish it as an eyesore.
People Involved
- Thom Mayne, an architect rooted in the radical spirit of the 1960s, pushed his unconventional designs onto federal projects in the 2000s. He dismissed the complaints of ordinary users as beside the point and hailed structures like the San Francisco Federal Building as triumphs of innovation. [1] Critics argue his approach prioritized hostility over habitability. [1]
- Meanwhile, Randy Shaw raised early alarms through his BeyondChron platform. He described the building's conditions as a daily ordeal for workers, long before surveys confirmed the discontent. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“As far as I can tell, Mayne invented the current architectural fad of sticking windows randomly on office buildings in order to shove a rigid digit in the face of Big Business and the Pentagon... 'The average person’s understanding of his projects is “irrelevant,” he told me. “There’s layers and layers of ideas that go into a piece of work.'”— What Else Should Trump Tear Down?
“San Francisco’s Green Building Nightmare by Randy Shaw on March 3, 2008 Few seem to care whether green buildings can be a nightmare for those having to work inside high-rise structures lacking heat or air conditioning.”— What Else Should Trump Tear Down?
Organizations Involved
The General Services Administration embraced avant-garde architecture through its Design Excellence program in the early 2000s. It commissioned Thom Mayne's San Francisco Federal Building, overlooking signs of practical flaws in favor of bold statements. [1] Mounting evidence challenges whether this institutional push truly served employees. [1] By 2023, the structure bore the name Nancy Pelosi Federal Building, a political nod that did little to address its ongoing issues. [1] Critics argue such renamings masked deeper dysfunctions sustained by bureaucratic inertia. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“Lauded by the New York Times as a building that “may one day be remembered as the crowning achievement of the General Services Administration’s Design Excellence program,””— What Else Should Trump Tear Down?
“Mayne designed it to include emergency pre-repairs of future earthquake damage... the new Thomas Mayne designed Federal Building... [it was renamed after Pelosi in 2023]”— What Else Should Trump Tear Down?
The Foundation
In the push for green architecture during the 2000s, features like absent air conditioning and energy-saving elements gained praise as forward-thinking. Proponents saw them as paths to a 'magical airiness' and healthier routines, with elevators skipping floors to encourage movement. [1] Growing questions surround these claims, as real-world use revealed discomfort and dissatisfaction. [1] Early arguments rested on conceptual appeal rather than occupant feedback, but critics argue the evidence for superiority was thin from the start. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“While architectural [critics] describe the building’s “sense of airiness” as “magical,” employees view working in this heat and air-conditioning free building with the wavy concrete floors and ceilings as a nightmare.”— What Else Should Trump Tear Down?
How It Spread
Architectural outlets amplified the acclaim for Thom Mayne's work in the mid-2000s. The New York Times and Metropolis magazine focused on the designs' deeper meanings, sidelining questions of daily functionality. [1] This media enthusiasm helped embed the idea that such buildings excelled in employee well-being. [1] Critics argue the spread ignored practical pitfalls, fueled by a preference for theory over testimony from those inside. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“While elite architects praised the resulting building, many San Franciscans consider it one of the ugliest structures in their city.”— What Else Should Trump Tear Down?
Resulting Policies
Under the General Services Administration's Design Excellence initiative in the 2000s, funds flowed to projects like the San Francisco Federal Building. The program valued aesthetic daring above all, commissioning Thom Mayne to realize his vision. [1] Growing questions surround whether this policy truly fostered superior workplaces. [1] It set a pattern where federal architecture chased innovation, often at the expense of user needs. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“the crowning achievement of the General Services Administration’s Design Excellence program”— What Else Should Trump Tear Down?
Harm Caused
Workers in the San Francisco Federal Building endured persistent discomfort after its 2007 opening. Without climate control, they faced extreme temperatures and used umbrellas against sun glare. [1] A 2010 General Services Administration survey showed just 13 percent satisfaction, dwarfed by the next-lowest score of 26 percent. [1] Elevators that skipped every third floor led to overcrowding and forced stair use, adding to the strain. [1] Critics argue these features created avoidable misery, though the assumption of excellence remains debated. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“In 2010 the GSA commissioned a survey of employees in 22 federal buildings nationwide... the lowest ranked building for employee satisfaction was the San Francisco Federal Building, with a rating of just 13 percent; the next-lowest was considered twice as satisfactory, at 26 percent.”— What Else Should Trump Tear Down?
“To address this, he installed elevators in the building that only stop at every third floor. This requires employees to walk up or down one or two flights of metal stairs. Persons with physical disabilities who cannot use stairs can use a separate elevator that stops at every floor.”— What Else Should Trump Tear Down?
Downfall
By 2010, a General Services Administration survey laid bare the San Francisco Federal Building's shortcomings in comfort, lighting, and sound. Employees reported widespread dissatisfaction, fueling doubts about the design's merits. [1] In 2020, President Trump's executive order took aim at such modernist excesses, calling for classical alternatives. [1] Mounting evidence challenges the notion that these starchitect creations deliver superior workplaces, yet the debate persists among experts. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“The San Francisco building scored well below the median in the categories of thermal comfort, lighting and acoustics. Donald Trump issued an Executive Order on December 21, 2020 stating: While elite architects praised the resulting building...”— What Else Should Trump Tear Down?
Sources
- [1]