democracy, diplomacy and defense: a deep dive into the architecture of US embassies

During the Cold War, the US Department of State wielded modern architecture as a powerful tool of cultural diplomacy. Crafted by renowned architects such as Walter Gropius, Marcel Breuer, Eero Saarinen, and Edward Durell Stone, these embassies were designed to convey American ideals of progress and democracy. Strategic use of modernist principles resulted in functional, welcoming, and visually appealing structures, featuring elements like glass, steel, open layouts, and expansive windows. Beyond their physical attributes, the buildings were meticulously formed to capture global admiration, playing a pivotal role in the Cold War battle for ideological supremacy.

Delving into this narrative, David B. Peterson presents US Embassies of the Cold War: The Architecture of Democracy, Diplomacy and Defense, a new large format, photo-driven architecture book that highlights the fourteen most significant midcentury modern American embassies built during the Cold War. Scheduled for release on Tuesday, September 19, 2023, the 171-page hardcover book contains over 200 previously unpublished archival images of mid-century diplomatic buildings. For a comprehensive understanding of US embassy architecture, its significance in portraying national identities, and bridging cultural divides, designboom spoke with author David B. Peterson. Read the interview in full, below.

US embassy in Dublin | image courtesy of the Department of Drawings and Archives, Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library, Columbia University, c.1957

designboom (DB): ‘During the Cold War, modern architecture was actively used as a powerful form of cultural diplomacy by the State Department’. Can you elaborate on specific design elements or features in these embassies that were deliberately incorporated to convey certain messages to foreign visitors and locals?

David B. Peterson (DBP): The midcentury modern embassies built by the US State Department between 1948 and 1962 were literal billboards – cultural diplomacy in a physical form that often included International Style features: ribbon windows, flat roofs, extensive glass and limited (if any) ornamentation.

The building’s circulation was also deliberately open and accessible for visitors to learn more about the United States and not simply a place for visas. These embassies frequently had separate entrances for the library, auditorium, and visas, all designed to maximize public access. In these spaces, local communities were invited to consume American culture in the form of books, magazines, cinema, art exhibitions, lectures, and a wide range of other media.

To complement their programming, the buildings themselves were also works of art – designed by many of the most prominent modernist architects working in the United States during this era. As one diplomat said: ‘the image of open Democracy was projected by American architects and designed through buildings which literally jeered the bunkers of totalitarians.’

US embassy in Dublin | image courtesy of the University of Pennsylvania

DB: The architects who designed the US embassies during the Cold War were some of the most influential figures of the twentieth century, including Walter Gropius, Marcel Breuer, Eero Saarinen, Edward Durell Stone, and more. How do you think their architectural styles and design choices contributed to expressing American ideals of a progressive, democratic society?

DBP: Until the US State Department embarked on the post-World War II building program, a ‘typical’ American embassy would be difficult to describe. In most cases, embassies were housed in rented spaces on an ad-hoc basis.

By the end of WWII, neoclassicism had come to be widely associated with fascism– beginning with Mussolini and Hitler and continuing with Stalin. By designing the United States’ first purpose-built embassies in an explicitly modern language, and by building them on such a wide scale in the victorious exuberance of the post-war American moment, the State Department was seeking to differentiate American culture from fascism and communism. By embracing modern designs (including, in effect, glass curtain walls) America was promoting the benefits of an open, modern, and progressive nation– a far cry from neoclassicism. Some have characterized the decision by the U.S. State Department and its Foreign Buildings Operations as a battle of ‘the curtain wall vs. the Iron Curtain.’

It’s not likely a coincidence that Walter Gropius, the architect of the US embassy in Athens (the birthplace of Western democracy), was the founder of the Bauhaus, which was shut down by the Nazis in 1933. An interesting footnote, Gropius used the same Pentelic marble in the Athens embassy as was used to build the Parthenon.

US embassy in Athens | image courtesy of the Harvard Art Museums, c. 1956

DB: Architecture often reflects the cultural identity of a nation. Did you notice any instances where the design of these embassies sparked debates or controversies, either domestically or internationally, due to cultural differences or perceptions?

DBP: The modern embassy program sparked debates both in the US and in the places where they were built. The earliest embassies, designed by Harrison & Abramovitz in Latin America and Rapson & Van Der Meulen in Scandinavia, exemplified the extreme minimalism of the International Style. Congressional conservatives in Washington absolutely hated these buildings, resulting in a mid-1950s shift in the leadership of the program and a wider selection of architects who were charged with producing designs that were more sympathetic and harmonious with local contexts. The results were interesting but did not always win over critics.

US embassy in Rio | image by US Department of State, c. 1951 courtesy of the National Archives

DBP (continued): In Europe, these embassies were often built in dense, historic city centers on land only made available as a result of aerial bombardment during World War II. For example, Saarinen’s London embassy was built in the predominantly 18th-century Grosvenor Square. Saarinen strove to balance modernist principles with the local context by harmonizing the fenestration with neighboring Georgian buildings and by adding a monumental gilded eagle to the principal façade (designed by Theodore Roszak). The London press was scathing, especially about the eagle. The eagle, somewhat surprisingly, still hangs above the main entrance of the now decommissioned building, soon to open as a hotel and restaurant.

The Dublin embassy, designed by John Johansen in 1957, almost did not get built. Two US Representatives, Wayne Hays and John Rooney, complained vehemently that the design was not reflective of the United States and that the projected cost was too expensive. It took personal involvement from President Kennedy, who intervened to resolve the controversy. The embassy opened in 1964 and is expected to be decommissioned in the near future. Finally, even Florence Knoll’s furniture in the embassies was often criticized for being overly modern.

US embassy in London | image by US Department of State, c. 1956-1958 courtesy of the National Archives

DB: Diplomacy often involves engaging with diverse cultures and traditions. Were there any examples where the design of these embassies incorporated elements from the host countries’ architecture as a way of bridging cultural gaps?

DBP: There were multiple instances where the architects involved in the program sought to incorporate local cultures and traditions in their designs. As I mentioned, Saarinen’s London embassy incorporated elements of Georgian architecture in an attempt to harmonize the design with its context in Grosvenor Square. Likewise, Edward Durell Stone modeled his chancery for the embassy in New Delhi on the Taj Mahal, complete with water gardens. In Accra, Harry Weese described his design as an inverted Wa-Naa Palace and used local mahogany extensively throughout the embassy. Dublin, the last embassy built under the program, was modeled on a Celtic fortress– moat and all. Johansen’s Dublin embassy has a circular footprint on a rectangular lot. The building’s round configuration was a symbol of openness and the democratic ideal of not turning its back on its neighbors.

US embassy in New Dehli | image by US Department of State courtesy of the National Archives, c. 1953