Editing J. Edgar Hoover Building (section)

===Critical reception===
[[File:Second floor viewing arcade - east facade - J Edgar Hoover Building - Washington DC - 2012.jpg|thumb|The second-floor viewing arcade on 9th Street NW in October 2012, criticized as dark and cavernous by ''Chicago Tribune'' critic Paul Gapp]]
The J. Edgar Hoover Building was widely praised when first erected. ''[[The Washington Post|Washington Post]]'' architectural critic Wolf Von Eckardt called it "gutsy" and "bold" architecture in 1964. It was, he asserted, "...masculine, no-nonsense architecture appropriate for a national police headquarters. It is a promising beginning for the new Pennsylvania Avenue."<ref name="VonEckardtNewFedStyle" /> ''[[Chicago Tribune]]'' critic [[Paul Gapp]] was more equivocal. Writing in 1978, he felt the uneven cornice line gave "the taller facades of the building a rather intimidating, temple-like look vaguely reminiscent of an old Cecil B. Dé Mille set". He also criticized the open second deck for having a dark, cavernous look and the interior for being "Federal drab". But on balance, Gapp wrote, while the FBI building "falls considerably below C.F. Murphy's general level of design excellence[,] ...it is not the visual disaster some of its detractors have made it out to be." He declared it mediocre architecture, but not worse than any other federal building built in Washington, D.C., the past decade.<ref name="Gapp" /> ''[[The New York Times|New York Times]]'' architecture critic [[Ada Louise Huxtable]] was also less enthusiastic. Although she enumerated several of the building's flaws, she nonetheless felt the design did a "superior job" in reconciling numerous problems facing the site and the uses to which the structure would be put.<ref name="Huxtable" />

Von Eckardt's views on the FBI building changed radically between his initial assessment in 1964 and the structure's completion in 1975.<ref name=lmtopn/> At its dedication, he called the building [[Orwellian]], "alien to the spirit of the capital", and an "overly dramatic and utterly miscarried play of forms". He criticized the interior as "a drab factory with harsh light, endless corridors, hard floors and no visual relief". Von Eckardt did not blame the architects for the building's design, but rather the CFA.<ref name="VonEckardtOrwell" /> [[Paul Goldberger]], writing for the ''New York Times'', echoed Von Eckardt's harsh assessment. He felt the design banal and dull, "an arrogant, overbearing concrete form that dares the visitor to come close." He noted that the high, strong massing on E Street was reminiscent of a similar rear massing on Le Courbousier's [[Sainte Marie de La Tourette|Priory at Sainte Marie de La Tourette]], but lacked the dramatic hill behind it to give the massing a counterpoint. "This building," he concluded, "turns its back on the city and substitutes for responsible architecture a pompous, empty monumentality that is, in the end, not so much a symbol as a symptom—a symptom of something wrong in government and just as wrong in architecture."<ref name="Goldberger"/>

[[File:Looking east at dry moat along E Street NW - J Edgar Hoover Building - Washington DC - 2012.jpg|thumb|left|Looking east along E Street NW at a portion of the dry, gravel-filled moat that surrounds the FBI building as a security measure]]
More recently, the J. Edgar Hoover Building has been strongly criticized for its aesthetics and impact on the urban life in the city. In 2005, D.C. architect [[Arthur Cotton Moore]] harshly condemned the building for creating a dead space in the heart of the nation's capital. "It creates a void along Pennsylvania Avenue. Given its elephantine size and harshness, it creates a black hole. Its concrete wall, with no windows or life to it, is an urban sin. People should be strolling down America's main street. Nobody strolls in front of the FBI Building."<ref>[http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/what-ive-learned-arthur-cotten-moore/ Adelman, Ken. "What I've Learned: Arthur Cotten Moore."] ''[[Washingtonian (magazine)|Washingtonian]]''. October 1, 2005. Accessed October 1, 2012.</ref> The following year, Gerard Moeller and Christopher Weeks wrote in the ''[[American Institute of Architects|AIA]] Guide to the Architecture of Washington, D.C.'' that the FBI building was the "swaggering bully of the neighborhood...ungainly, ill-mannered..." They also blamed the structure's poor design for undermining the redevelopment of Pennsylvania Avenue: "the impenetrable base, the shadowy courtyard, and looming upper stories bespeak security and surveillance. The prototype for the Pennsylvania Avenue redevelopment plan devised under the direction of Nathanial Owings, it helped to ensure that the full plan would never be realized."<ref>Moeller and Weeks, p. 128.</ref> Five years later, in 2011, ''[[Washington City Paper]]'' reporter Lydia DePillis noted that the building has "long been maligned as downtown D.C.'s ugliest edifice".<ref name="DePillis">[http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/housingcomplex/2011/11/09/the-fbi-building-is-a-disaster/ DePillis, Lydia. "The FBI Building is a Disaster." ''Washington City Paper.'' November 9, 2011.] Accessed October 1, 2012.</ref> ''Architecture for Dummies'' author Deborah K. Dietsch said in April 2012 that it was "disastrous", "insensitive", and "hostile", and that it and the [[James V. Forrestal Building]] topped the list of the city's ugliest buildings.<ref name="Dietsch">[http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/print-edition/2012/04/06/replacing-dc-eyesores.html Dietsch, Deborah K. "Replacing D.C. Eyesores." ''Washington Business Journal.'' April 6, 2012.] Accessed September 29, 2012.</ref> A list compiled by [[Trippy]].com and [[Reuters]] declared the J. Edgar Hoover Building the world's ugliest building, and found it to be a "dreary 1970s behemoth".<ref>Quoted in [https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/all-opinions-are-local/post/dcs-world-class-eyesore/2012/05/07/gIQAooQa8T_blog.html Austermuhle, Martin. "D.C.'s World-Class Eyesore." ''Washington Post.'' May 7, 2012.] Accessed October 1, 2012.</ref> ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'' travel writer Christopher Reynolds remarked that the Hoover building is "so ugly, local historians say, that it scared authorities into setting higher standards for pedestrian friendliness among buildings along [Pennsylvania Avenue]".<ref>Reynolds, Christopher. "America's Main Street America." ''Los Angeles Times.'' April 26, 1992.</ref>

Perhaps the most critical—and most important—criticism has come from the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts themselves. In 2009, the two agencies released a major new strategic study and plan for the future of the city of Washington, D.C., the ''Monumental Core Framework Plan''. Although the two agencies stopped short of asking the federal government to tear the J. Edgar Hoover Building down, the two agencies were trenchant in their criticism:
:...the FBI's security requirements have prevented street-level public uses around the entire block of the J. Edgar Hoover Building between 9th and 10th Streets. The building's fortress-like presence is exacerbated by security installations, the moat that surrounds three sides of the building, the scale of its architectural features, and the absence of street-level activity. ...[R]edevelopment of the J. Edgar Hoover Building site with cultural, hospitality, commercial, and office uses can bring new urban vitality to Pennsylvania Avenue.<ref>[http://www.ncpc.gov/DocumentDepot/Publications/Framework/FrameworkPlan7_LinkDowntownMall.pdf National Capital Planning Commission and Commission of Fine Arts. ''Monumental Core Framework Plan.'' Washington, D.C.: NCPC and CFA, 2009, p. 68, 70.] Accessed October 1, 2012.</ref>