Tearing Down the East Wing Is, In Fact, ‘Interfering’ with the Current Structure

I concur with our editorial contending that the Democrats’ reaction to the addition of a ballroom of the White House has been hysterical and over the top. But I would add three notes.

First, Trump’s initial announcement of the project on July 31 included statements that were clearly not accurate:

It will be beautiful. It will be views of the Washington Monument. It won’t interfere with the current building. It won’t be — it will be near it but not touching it. And pays total respect to the existing building, which I’m the biggest fan of. It’s my favorite. It’s my favorite place, I love it. But they’ve wanted it. And you know, when they have big events, you entertain the president of China, or the president of any place and you have big crowds. They’ve always had to get a tent. And you’ve probably been to some of them, Bobby. When it rains, it’s a disaster. And the tents 100 yards, that’s more than a football field away from the main entrance. And people are schlepping down to — to the tent. It’s not a pretty sight. The women with their lovely evening gowns.

Well, when you’re demolishing the entire East Wing, you are in fact “interfering” with the current building, and it’s silly to pretend otherwise. Also, in a development that is no surprise to anyone who’s ever had home repairs, the estimate of the cost of the project has grown from $200 million to $300 million. Yes, all of the money is coming from private donors, but it’s not surprising that people feel like they didn’t get the whole story in the initial announcement by the president.

Second, while it is true that the American Institute of Architects and Society of Architectural Historians have no formal or legal role in the process of making changes to the White House, it’s not surprising that their noses are out of joint over there being a minimal review process to the proposed changes. Trump loves showing off these plans; imagine if he had invited the leaders of the AIA and SAH to the White House to show off the proposals. A lot of people are much more amenable to a change when they feel like they’ve been consulted, whether or not those consultations are genuine or for show.

So, sure, Trump wasn’t obligated to consult with any historic or architectural groups before he charged ahead with his plans. But going through the motions of consulting with them might have mitigated some of the current freakout — and who knows, maybe the AIA and SAH would have some good ideas to improve upon the initial proposed design.

Third, the National Capital Planning Commission is a federal agency that has broad regulatory power over construction projects in the District of Columbia, and has signed off on previous changes made to the White House. Trump’s appointed chair of that commission said in September that the NCPC has “no jurisdiction over demolition and site preparation work for federal buildings on federal property.” Okay, but the demolition and site preparation work on federal property is for the future construction on federal property, which is in the NCPC’s jurisdiction. As noted in the Morning Jolt earlier this week, the NCPC is closed because of the federal government shutdown.

So, President Trump could have been more upfront about the disruption to the existing structures, he could have attempted to woo architectural and historic organizations, and he could have waited to get NCPC approval of the changes. He didn’t, and the freakout is a predictable, and probably partially avoidable, consequence of it all.