The New White House Ballroom Good Idea or a Colossal Mistake?

98 Responses

1. I too am saddened by the missed opportunity for this not to seemingly be one man’s (or one presidential administration’s) vanity project. I have no problem with enlarging and modernizing some of the facilities at the White House. As someone with degrees in history I am deeply saddened by the lack of care taken to preserve the historic structures and gardens (I am hopeful that more efforts were made to preserve what was inside the East wing before demolition).

   I think what upsets me the most is the lack of imagination and collective input into this project. There are so many clever, creative, ingenious ideas that the American people could have provided to serve as a basis for such a project. Ones that might not fully be incorporated in a final design, but could have provided important nuance and texture to the people’s house.

   I work on a university campus and recently a memorial was built on campus to honor students who die before they graduate. The administration was adamant that this project involve the entire campus community with proposals, design roundtables, community listening sessions, etc. The entire process was so cathartic and healing for all of us who got involved with it. It makes me feel loss at the fact that as a nation, we didn’t get a similar opportunity here.

   The other thing I can’t stop thinking about is just how much this monster of a structure is going to cost taxpayers to maintain for how infrequently a ballroom of that size is likely to be filled. I think we could do so much better, and that makes me sad and regretful.

2. Thanks for this thoughtfully written and sensitive post, Laurel.
   It seems that some folks are mistakenly conflating the major White House infrastructure modernization project approved by Congress in 2008 (during the Bush era) with Obama’s modest conversion of an existing tennis court to a basketball court.
   Although work on the approved infrastructure updates began during Obama’s term, the project was initiated during the Bush administration. The Bush administration had produced a study that identified systems that were failing and needed modernization. (Like many renovation projects, the work didn’t begin immediately.) The updates focused on things like new heating and air conditioning systems, sewer lines, fire prevention systems, and security upgrades. It was costly, but hardly a vanity project.
   Notably, the modernization project was approved through regular Congressional channels.

3. Having read through all the comments I was struck that ANY criticism of anything that the President is doing is seen as a political attach. You were not commenting about anything political, but a side issue (construction of a building) that is in YOUR AREA OF EXPERTISE!
   You have had many posts about analyzing the good/bad qualities of other public building or spaces-including Copley Square.
   I enjoy reading all your posts, even if I personally do or don’t agree.
   I’m sorry that there are so many “snow flakes” today

4. Hello Laurel, I hope you are doing well. I didn’t plan to read your whole piece here but once I clicked and began it was captivating as usual! I posted your plan on President Trump’s Truth social in hopes he will see it and reconsider 😆 how I wish I would have found your blog before we began our new build years ago

   1. Thank you, Katie. I’m immensely flattered. That is so kind of you. I feel very strongly that the design needs to be reconfigured. Oh, where is Thomas Jefferson when we need him?

5. By the way, for whatever it’s worth, I appreciate your opinion on the aesthetics of the design. I do agree with you that some of it needs to be “tweaked” to be more consistent with the architectural design of the White House.

6. Wow. First of all, I have to confess that I did not read all of the eighty-plus comments on your post, Laurel – only about 20%. Unfortunately, these days, anything anyone says that is remotely related to the current president easily stirs the pot. Bearing that in mind, I will try to keep my comments as inoffensive as possible. After seeing your diagram of the White House and the new ballroom, I have to agree that this new addition appears to be way out of proportion, but I have no way of knowing how large a venue is needed to accommodate all of the dignitaries that might come to the White House, on any given occasion. It does disturb me, somewhat, that the East Wing, along with Jackie Kennedy’s garden, were torn down, but the East Wing was very, old construction. All buildings eventually wear out, either need to be renovated or removed. All buildings, if they are to continue to be useful, eventually need to be reworked to meet present needs. While we will never all agree on whether or not this building is appropriate, I do believe the president wants to create something worthy of this country’s home for the first family, whoever they may be, and this is his vision for that. I am happy that it will not be paid for with taxpayer’s dollars. Currently this country is over 38 trillion dollars in debt. If it were, I would strongly object to it’s construction.

7. I love your idea of a more balanced look of both wings. THAT looks like CLASS. Make of that what you will.

8. Laurel – you’ve presented a beautiful solution to the WH need for more space.

   I would think the cramped West Wing is on someone’s agenda for future upgrades.
   And I’m wondering how the new Ballroom Building will turn out – sketches notwithstanding…
   Having toured the White House as a child, it seemed large to me then.
   However, life is filled with abrupt transitions and this Ballroom building might be one of them.

   Once again, thank you for masterfully presenting beautiful and well-thought out ideas…

9. I can’t distinguish Palladian from Palomino or Ionic from Ironic, but I do know that you cannot remove a building in 3 days in normal America without getting permits, permission, testing, and dumping directions. The East Wing had to have had lead paint and/or lead pipes given its time of build. To replace windows in a tiny bungalow we needed a paint test which showed 92 parts per million lead while the legal limit is 90 parts per million; we had to do very expensive abatement procedures. I am upset that this was not followed in the people’s house, i.e. The White House.

   I am not a designer but I know you cannot attach an airplane hanger-sized building to a regular building without visual discordance. A building’s design should take careful planning and adherence and I don’t think this one has had any. America deserves thoughtful planning and design in almost everything.

10. Laurel, I agree with your observations that the design is not at all cohesive and, as with all of your prior “here’s how Laurel would redesign/remodel this”, you’ve shared the why’s.

    One of the obvious issues is that this project is not at all how one handles a remodeling project of any sort. The existing does not get demolished before the final plans are complete and approved. And in this case, the plans aren’t even started – just a few sketches have been presented. If you were enlarging your dining room, you wouldn’t tear down the existing framing before you knew what the new space would be. If you were redoing landscaping, you wouldn’t bulldoze your planting beds and cut down trees before having a final plan.

    1. Hi Michelle,

       I agree that the plans should’ve been completed and approved before any demolition took place. It also would’ve been helpful if the president had been forthcoming about what was going to happen. Whether it was intentional or not, I don’t know. However, this is the sort of thing that incites mistrust in a leader. Yes, many presidents of both parties have told blatant lies. It’s horrible and I wish they wouldn’t because it usually comes back to bite them back even worse than if they had been truthful from the get-go.

11. Laurel,
    I appreciate your comments about the new design of the East Wing. It is, as you state, out of proportion with the current West Wing. I imagine there may be some uproar when it comes time to renovate or demolish the West Wing. With no reference to politics I believe that a new East Wing and possibly a new West Wing will be appreciated.

    Again, in an effort to not be political. I find it interesting that you and others don’t like all the gold embellishments at the White House. My grandparents came from Austria and there is quite a bit of gold in the palaces. My grandmother always said you can never have enough gold.

12. Well to seat a thousand people, have a working kitchen, bathrooms, and office space, the building is going to be huge. I see other countries structures for their leaders and wonder why can’t the White House have one beautiful room for entertaining these dignitaries so used to lush surroundings? Some will love this design other will hate it. Isn’t that normal?
    I heard along with the tent for dining I heard they have to bring in portable toilets. I can’t imagine a woman in a ball gown trying to navigate the porta potties they have had to use!

    1. Hi ADN,

       Yes, everything you’re saying I concur with 100% and believe I made that clear in the post. However, when do they need to seat 1,000 people, or even 800? The only time I’m aware of is after the inauguration. If I’m wrong about that, I apologize, but it can’t be very often, otherwise we’d know about it. In these rare events, it seems having the event at a venue geared for tremendously large formal gatherings would be appropriate. Creating a room that’s larger than the entire footprint of the White House itself, is not appropriate.

       However, to reiterate, as I said near the beginning of the post, I think a new, larger than 2,500 square foot ballroom is a wonderful idea. 8,000 or so, sounds about right. That too, is a HUGE room!

13. I’m feeling the need to say that had this been done in another era when there was unbiased news reporting where just facts were given and not personal opinions and no social media that this would not be the national crisis some are making of it. I do have to agree and did want to point it out in my previous comment that I felt you yourself showed your political bias and now we see what side you are on. In the past this has never worked to keep all subscribers and you knid of shot yourself in the foot because you have already lost some. Maybe you don’t care and I will not be one but the thought did cross my mind. One more thing you said you would not tolerate mean comments but the one that takes the Lord’s name in vain and calls you readers “ignorant, horrible. people” is still there. I really think way too much attention is being placed on everything single thing that this president is doing. No other president has had to be in a daily fight or deal with this constant criticism. Can we all just focus on our own lives and let him serve his term without the hair pulling and tantrums that his predecessors were able to do? We are not paying for this so can we just be grateful and shut up. And by the way where if Obama’s b-court didn’t cost $376 million what did? I can’t seem to find any detailed information on where our money WAS spent.

    1. Hi Dianne,

       Apologies if it was me. I’m totally imperfect. My younger son is moving to Israel tomorrow. The 376 million was spent on infrastructure during Obama’s presidency, however, I read that Congress approved of it during Bush’s term. The basketball court was an adaptation of an existing tennis court. The space now accommodates both tennis and basketball.

       But tell me, how it’s possible for a basketball court to cost $376,000,000.00? A chunk of that money was used for east wing repairs. The Obamas did spend 1.5 million redecorating and used their own money. Redecorating is something most presidents do.

14. My politics are conservative and my decorative tastes modern, but I agree with you 100% on the design flaws! The Palladian window proportions, the lack of space for fine art, the destruction of classical symmetry, the column capitals, the excessive gilting—are so wrong. However, the security will be better than hosting heads of states in tents, just wish they would scale it back and consult the historic preservationists and classical architects available.

15. Fir those who comment that this post is political, I just don’t see it. Simply disagreeing with a decision the president made, regardless if whether your support in general or not, does not smack of partisanship. Laurel supports her case with many visuals, historical facts, and a proven knowledge of the elements of classical (and tasteful) architectural design. I 100% agree with her position and lament the fact that it appears too late to stop construction of this behemoth.

16. By the way, as someone who works in DC, the rumblings are the president does not plan on stopping with the east wing. There may be a much bigger redesign of the White House of foot.

    1. Hi R.M.,

       Well, let’s leave all rumblings off the table. I’m not a fan of things like, “He’s not planning on leaving office.” I have seen no indication of that. And again, it’s conjecture.

       People also have to remember that I’m from New York and lived in the NYC for 13 years. And during that time, Donald Trump was on the cover of the NY Post 100s of times, and it was only because whatever was going on in his personal life made for good headlines and made him out to be someone of questionable character. This is fact. Whether the articles were factual or not, I’m not sure and don’t read that stuff. It’s just that it was constantly in everyone’s face.

17. I so appreciate your extensive knowledge, and your deep dive into the true undertaking going on. What I have learned from my own commenting on various political positions is that removing all adjectives makes a much calmer post! Of course, a much more boring one, as well. Haha!

    1. Hi Margaret,

       I am known for telling people what I think about things from a design perspective. I realize that saying anything negative about something connected with Donald Trump gives some people a license to crap all over me.

       However, it doesn’t.

       For whatever it’s worth. I was appalled that Bill Clinton wasn’t removed from office. What he did to that poor young woman is unconscionable. Were there any consequences? Otherwise, I find him to be a likable man. I suppose that’s how he got away with it, but it’s still not right.

18. After looking at the plans for the new ballroom, which is outsized and throws the entire structure of the White House out of balance, I am certain that President Trump will reconsider. Maybe he hasn’t closely studied the plans? As they stand now, they seem vulgar. This may just be a work in progress. I have always felt that the White House is a grand and lovely building. A beautiful, balanced proportionate representation of a great people. I believe if this new ballroom is built, according to those plans, when people look at the White House, the ballroom which is twice the size of the White House, will appear dwarfed. I believe President Trump and those around him will probably reconsider. I have hope that something lovely and respectful of American traditions Will be designed and that design perfectly enacted. My one concern is that if billionaires are donating money will they expect something in return for their donation? I believe the American people should pay for America’s house. And if, because of the economy, now is not the time to undertake such an extraordinarily expensive building project, we should put it on hold until our economy is doing better.

    1. Hi R,

       Thank you for this thoughtful well-articulated comment.

19. It is obvious that your design sense is spot on.

    I have to echo, “Who knew that so many of your readers were. . .”

    It was also very interesting to see the other designs proposed in the past century or so.

    I’ve been to the East Wing (visitors on White House tours enter through it). It was lovely and you could feel the history in the walls.

    This latest fiasco really was the last straw for me.

    One thing: there absolutely are laws regarding our historical buildings. “Congressional approval and funding: The White House is federal property, and major structural changes or rebuilding require congressional approval and federal funding.
    NCPC oversight: The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) must evaluate major federal projects in the Washington D.C. region, including White House construction, for design and planning impacts.
    U.S. Commission of Fine Arts (CFA): This commission reviews and advises on the design of exterior modifications.”

    It is hard for me to accept that people who can write a sentence would believe that a tennis court reconfigured into a basketball court could believe that such a move would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Did I really just read that above?

    Using private donors for any such building is manifest corruption.

    Someone did this just to prove he could.

    If this comment is too political, bite me. or delete it, or whatever. I really reigned in what I wanted to say.

20. Perplexity AI …
    “James McCrery has responded to criticism about the ballroom’s scale by emphasizing historical precedent and the practical needs of the White House. He argues that every modern administration has struggled with the lack of appropriate space for major events, and that the new ballroom will finally solve a long-standing problem while maintaining classical design and elegance.

    The debate around McCrery’s plans includes genuine architectural concerns, but it is undeniably shaped and amplified by political context and motivations from critics and supporters alike.”

    My two cents … I appreciate your design commentary Laurel, but unfortunately you didn’t adhere to the non-political warning you demanded of your readers. Your site, your choice. I will refrain from walking until I see how you handle things moving forward.

    I am looking for people of integrity who can present information without political bias and innuendo.

    1. Hi Susan,

       I am copying and pasting this comment after every one that went against the rules.

       Nobody said that to me when I lambasted democrat, Michelle Wu’s Copley Square disaster. My comments are NOT politically motivated. I think we do need a new building, however, I don’t like the way it has been handled and I don’t like the building.

       I do like the Rose garden pavers and love the drainage border. I understand the need to get rid of the soggy grass and the way they did the pavers which are not concrete, but look to be white granite, in the diamond pattern is lovely. I would’ve done a subtle harlequin pattern with a slightly darker stone. The patio could use some potted plants. For some who don’t realize, the roses were not touched. They are all still there.

       Jackie’s decades old garden was demolished. I am more upset about that than I am the building.

       I want to be clear that I’m an exceedingly proud AMERICAN CITIZEN. I don’t know the difference between conservative and liberal because both sides have issues. So, I agree with some philosophies from both parties. Some, I strongly disagree with. However, I am not one to put others down if they believe differently.

       I will let your comment stand. But comments after this one that came at 1:27 this afternoon, that are making disparaging shaming me for something that is not true, they will be deleted. There is absolutely no political bias or innuendo. That is you, reading into my critique and inferring something in your own mind.

       And I refuse to be put into a situation where I’m defending myself. That is why I wrote the disclaimer which several people haven’t heeded.

       Readers are allowed to talk about buildings, not say things like they’re a nasty person, or whatever. I gave President Trump the benefit of the doubt. If you can’t understand the distinction, then there’s nothing more for me to say.

       For God’s sake. I have one child who is so liberal, I fondly call him a Communist. The other one is a die-hard red-hatted MAGA who did a counterprotest in Asheville, NC a few months ago. He was interviewed on the news.

       I love and support both of my sons and respect their views and hope they respect mine.

       This is what I want for the good people of our country. I want RESPECT, even if we DISAGREE.

       Thank you, all.

21. Retired architect here. Most of my career was in new contemporary design. I did work for a firm that specialized in historic preservation which they did at a very high level of research and quality. Everything you wrote is an excellent overview of what is wrong with this design, as I knew it would be having followed you for some time. This is what I think happened: the architecture firm has not designed the building. They rushed together some perspectives, and tossed together a massing model. Then they appliqued an elevation onto the massing model. If there is an actual design behind these images that have been released, I’ll eat my hat.

    1. Hi Faxon,

       I tend to agree with you because every iteration of the design is different. And that is what is also making me think this was hastily thrown together with a program. I mean in that one rendering, the Washington Monument is looking like it’s trying to run away. lol

       I have faith that final iteration will be lovely building that we can all be proud of.

       However, I am concerned that they began work before the design was finalized and approved of. While the demolishing doesn’t require approval, the building does. It’s the law. That process can take months if not years. In the meantime, the loss of that facility is a problem.

22. Wow! Because of your preface indicating this was not a political post I really thought readers would focus on your well thought out reasoning regarding the design of the ballroom space. Boy, was I wrong! I see your comments as constructive criticism, which healthy people appreciate. Thanks for taking the time to research and share your expertise.

    1. Thank you ConstNCE, or is it that a typo and it’s Constance?

       I know my readers which is why I made that preface. This is one of my beefs in this country. Everything has become politicized and while that’s appropriate in some circumstances, this is not one of them. President Trump is not spearheading this project because of his political affiliation. I am presuming he’s doing it as part of his legacy, but also because it’s needed. I can’t fault him for either of those, especially the latter. But this structure as shown is over the top and not in keeping with the current White House complex.

23. If you see the Oval in it’s entirety it’s absolutely stunning with the original oil paintings taken from archives with the consent of the White House currators. The East wing is not a historical aspect of the house .. Initially built (foundation) in 1902 by Teddy as a terrace for his large family. The rooms throughout the White House, though many are very small. The East wing structure was over 120 years old… Roosevelt in 1942 build the wing itself to cover a bunker during World War ll for staff officies. What’s the big deal? Fundraising was done in the private sector, the taxpayers will not be exploited and it’s not like we don’t have a President who knows how to build large, quality properties. I was always embarrassed that the State dinners were in tents like a wedding reception with prot a potties. WE ARE THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD> Hold on Laurel Boston Democrats are going to be ruffled in the coming weeks like NEVER BEFORE

    1. Hi Patrice,

       Anyone who’s read my blog for a while knows I’m incredibly fond of fine art. I ADORE the beautiful historic oil paintings in the oval office and wish other presidents had put them up. I also like all of the flags and feel that’s a lovely gesture and appropriate for the office of the president.

       The gold decals, I feel are a bit much, but they can be changed pretty easily. Some gold figurines on the mantel would’ve been wonderful, and the gorgeous antique gold painting frames.

       Frankly, I hated Biden’s decorating. And I wish Trump had left Michael Smith’s decor up during his first term.

       These are my honest opinions, having nothing to do with how I feel with political topics. Those are off-limits on this blog.

       Thank you.

24. Thank you for the excellent analysis! I can’t imagine unsubscribing from your blog over politics, when you weren’t being political. For shame! I read nothing offensive. I’m a political conservative, but I have no problem with your insights. I hate it when I mention some policy or action, and people immediately jump on personalities.
    We finally got to tour the White House in the spring and enjoyed the classic and human scale rooms very much. European buildings like Versailles really are overdone. That was the point of them. But we are a practical people in this country, and don’t go in for outward honor.
    The ballroom seems kind of like McMansions that have underused space, What is the meaning of a dinner with 1000 people? Halve the dining space, and use the rest for other functional activities. I’m sure that more space is needed.
    it would be good to see this whole project redesigned, and it looks like Harrison had a great plan. Even so, probably the West Wing will eventually be extended to match. The wings will provide more protection and function. Wings at the back are not going to ruin the building. We don’t see the back of the White House anyway.
    However, I agree about hating to see the style of the White House spoiled by an addition that does not match architecturally.
    Thanks, Laurel.

    1. Thank you, Laura. Thank you for being the voice of reason. I very much appreciate that. I know there are wonderful people on both sides of the political fence. The White House is not a political party. It belongs to ALL Americans. And I feel quite strongly, no matter one’s affiliation being horrified by one of our American treasures being ripped away by a couple of mechanical T-Rexes is understandable.

       However, I have faith that in the end, the new building will be one we can all be proud of.

25. Since this was not to be political , I would say this post”s message was an obvious failure.

    1. Caron,

       That is a very nasty thing to say and I don’t appreciate that.

       I am copying and pasting this comment after every one that went against the rules.

       Nobody said that to me when I lambasted democrat, Michelle Wu’s Copley Square disaster. My comments are NOT politically motivated. I think we do need a new building, however, I don’t like the way it has been handled and I don’t like the building.

       I do like the Rose garden pavers and love the drainage border. I understand the need to get rid of the soggy grass and the way they did the pavers which are not concrete, but look to be white granite, in the diamond pattern is lovely. I would’ve done a subtle harlequin pattern with a slightly darker stone. The patio could use some potted plants. For some who don’t realize, the roses were not touched. They are all still there.

       Jackie’s decades old garden was demolished. I am more upset about that than I am the building.

       I want to be clear that I’m an exceedingly proud AMERICAN CITIZEN. I don’t know the difference between conservative and liberal because both sides have issues. So, I agree with some philosophies from both parties. Some, I strongly disagree with. However, I am not one to put others down if they believe differently.

       I will let your comment stand. But comments after this one that came at 1:27 this afternoon, that are making disparaging shaming me for something that is not true, they will be deleted. There is absolutely no political bias or innuendo. That is you, reading into my critique and inferring something in your own mind.

       And I refuse to be put into a situation where I’m defending myself. That is why I wrote the disclaimer which several people haven’t heeded.

       Readers are allowed to talk about buildings, not say things like they’re a nasty person, or whatever. I gave President Trump the benefit of the doubt. If you can’t understand the distinction, then there’s nothing more for me to say.

       For God’s sake. I have one child who is so liberal, I fondly call him a Communist. The other one is a die-hard red-hatted MAGA who did a counterprotest in Asheville, NC a few months ago. He was interviewed on the news.

       I love and support both of my sons and respect their views and hope they respect mine.

       This is what I want for the good people of our country. I want RESPECT, even if we DISAGREE.

       Thank you, all.

26. Thank you for an interesting and informative post. I agree with your opinions wholeheartedly.

27. You raised so many excellent design points and this is a blog for design ideas. A change involving the tearing down of an historic building and the construction of an enormous new one adjoining the White House should have more transparency and input from diverse relevant sources. While the new ballroom may be built with funds from unnamed private sources, will these unnamed sources also pay for the increase in heat, air conditioning and upkeep in future years? When I visited the White House, I took pride in the fact that it is the “people’s house”. Will the government be in debt to these private sources of funding for years going forward? I don’t think our country needs to keep up with the grand, ostentatious and yes, some of them stunning in their opulence – buildings built by the kings, tsars and tyrants of centuries past. Surely a new building in keeping with the current architecture and meeting the government’s current needs could have been better thought out.

    1. Thank you, Gretchen. I agree with your points, as well. The old building was 12,500 square feet and this one is 90,000. Utilities and maintenance will go up dramatically.

28. I am amazed that an itelligent person would take the BBC as an objective credible source reporting on a conservative President. THe ballroom will be lovely. It has been announced in the press for several years, and back on the table since the Trump administrations. The 90,000 feet is not just a the ballroom, the offices for the First Lady will be included in the renovation. Trump builds beautiful and appropriate buildings for whatever architecture is in play and had one of the best construction companies in D.C. to do the tear down. It’s the People’s house… Trump was the choice in 2020 by the majority of the people. The White House needs a facility bigger than a tent for Official functions for all events planned. No one said a sit down dinner for 1000… except maybe the BBC who has an audacity due to the horrendous waste and wealth of the royals and all their castles. Boton has infected you Laurel.

    1. Hi Patrice,

       The ballroom is 25,000 square feet as stated in the post. Or, roughly ten times the size of the current state dining room. I am proposing a more modest room, maybe four times the size of the current dining room would be more appropriate and would fulfill virtually every function. If they need to seat more than 400, then perhaps another venue, could be selected. After-all, if those people aren’t local, then they are most likely staying in another location anyway.

       I am copying and pasting this comment after every one that went against the rules.

       Nobody said that to me when I lambasted democrat, Michelle Wu’s Copley Square disaster. My comments are NOT politically motivated. I think we do need a new building, however, I don’t like the way it has been handled and I don’t like the building.

       I do like the Rose garden pavers and love the drainage border. I understand the need to get rid of the soggy grass and the way they did the pavers which are not concrete, but look to be white granite, in the diamond pattern is lovely. I would’ve done a subtle harlequin pattern with a slightly darker stone. The patio could use some potted plants. For some who don’t realize, the roses were not touched. They are all still there.

       Jackie’s decades old garden was demolished. I am more upset about that than I am the building.

       I want to be clear that I’m an exceedingly proud AMERICAN CITIZEN. I don’t know the difference between conservative and liberal because both sides have issues. So, I agree with some philosophies from both parties. Some, I strongly disagree with. However, I am not one to put others down if they believe differently.

       I will let your comment stand. But comments after this one that came at 1:27 this afternoon, that are making disparaging shaming me for something that is not true, they will be deleted. There is absolutely no political bias or innuendo. That is you, reading into my critique and inferring something in your own mind.

       And I refuse to be put into a situation where I’m defending myself. That is why I wrote the disclaimer which several people haven’t heeded.

       Readers are allowed to talk about buildings, not say things like they’re a nasty person, or whatever. I gave President Trump the benefit of the doubt. If you can’t understand the distinction, then there’s nothing more for me to say.

       For God’s sake. I have one child who is so liberal, I fondly call him a Communist. The other one is a die-hard red-hatted MAGA who did a counterprotest in Asheville, NC a few months ago. He was interviewed on the news.

       I love and support both of my sons and respect their views and hope they respect mine.

       This is what I want for the good people of our country. I want RESPECT, even if we DISAGREE.

       Thank you, all.

29. I appreciate this thorough examination of the history of the architecture. Seeing those old plans was really interesting. Thank you for the information!

30. What would Jackie do? I think she’d have held her head up high and made a quiet visit with President Trump to plead her case. When he respects someone and feels they have something valuable to say, he is known for being a good listener. One thing i am sure of, Jackie would not have added to the pervasive TDS which creeps into every aspect of our lives today. Intelligent people know, instinctively, that if you want to be heard you leave out all the invective from your argument.
    Laural, a designer myself, I respect your hard work and agree with the bare bones of your reasoning. But please, don’t add more hatred to the social media sickness.

    1. Hi Gerrie,

       I dislike this building, but was respectful to the president and gave him the benefit of the doubt.

       I am copying and pasting this comment after every one that went against the rules.

       Nobody said that to me when I lambasted democrat, Michelle Wu’s Copley Square disaster. My comments are NOT politically motivated. I think we do need a new building, however, I don’t like the way it has been handled and I don’t like the building.

       I do like the Rose garden pavers and love the drainage border. I understand the need to get rid of the soggy grass and the way they did the pavers which are not concrete, but look to be white granite, in the diamond pattern is lovely. I would’ve done a subtle harlequin pattern with a slightly darker stone. The patio could use some potted plants. For some who don’t realize, the roses were not touched. They are all still there.

       Jackie’s decades old garden was demolished. I am more upset about that than I am the building.

       I want to be clear that I’m an exceedingly proud AMERICAN CITIZEN. I don’t know the difference between conservative and liberal because both sides have issues. So, I agree with some philosophies from both parties. Some, I strongly disagree with. However, I am not one to put others down if they believe differently.

       I will let your comment stand. But comments after this one that came at 1:27 this afternoon, that are making disparaging shaming me for something that is not true, they will be deleted. There is absolutely no political bias or innuendo. That is you, reading into my critique and inferring something in your own mind.

       And I refuse to be put into a situation where I’m defending myself. That is why I wrote the disclaimer which several people haven’t heeded.

       Readers are allowed to talk about buildings, not say things like they’re a nasty person, or whatever. I gave President Trump the benefit of the doubt. If you can’t understand the distinction, then there’s nothing more for me to say.

       For God’s sake. I have one child who is so liberal, I fondly call him a Communist. The other one is a die-hard red-hatted MAGA who did a counterprotest in Asheville, NC a few months ago. He was interviewed on the news.

       I love and support both of my sons and respect their views and hope they respect mine.

       This is what I want for the good people of our country. I want RESPECT, even if we DISAGREE.

       Thank you, all.

31. Laurel, I agree with your redesign ideas, especially remodeling the West Wing in proportion.

    One thing I’m wondering is, how noisy is that ball room going to be when it’s full of people? It looks like it has hard flooring and hard ceiling. That, added to its massive size, makes this layperson think that no one is going to be able to hear their neighbor talk. It’s hard for me to enjoy a good meal in such conditions.

    1. Hi Margaret,

       Oh my! Great point. As I see it, it looks to be an accoustical nightmare. I am praying for far fewer windows with heavy velvet drapes, please. I encourage others to look at Monticello, the home designed by Thomas Jefferson. The state dining room should be more like this. Of course, on a much larger scale, but imagine guests refusing invitations because they know they’ll be subjected to two or three hours of deafening noise.

       They definitely need to hire an acoustician.

32. Hi Laurel,
    I agree that the ballroom is way out of proportion. This article is looking at the “People’s House” though an architectural perspective, not a political one. Balance and symmetry are very important to classical architecture and design. From that perspective you should not have one portion building oversized and towering over the rest. To not go thru the proper channels has resulted in this way out of proportion addition.

33. Laurel, thank you for your thoughtful commentary and historical and architectural perspectives. As a longtime blog reader, I believe that your expertise and education make you a valid commentator on this subject. Additionally, since your blog has always focused both on classical design and architecture, this post is both appropriate and relevant to the genre of your blog. I find it disheartening that some readers of a design blog cannot separate their blind loyalty to a politician from rational commentary from an educated designer who they have admired and sought out for design advice for many years.

    1. Thank you, Tracy. Yes! I am a classicist, and everything I wrote about is meant to impart my knowledge having nothing to do with any political views.

34. I may be a bit more upset with the person who took the Lord’s name in vain than some are with this addition.

    1. Hi Linda,

       Apologies if it was me. I know that I can be a bit vulgar. I try to tone it down for the blog because I know it upsets some.

35. Perhaps in the future you could have a disclaimer for your conservative readers. I read with caution because I enjoy your opinion on design. However, I don’t enjoy reading your bias which was depicted throughout blog particularly when you referred to our president as Mr. Trump.

    1. Hi Diane,

       What is wrong with that? I know I said President Trump at least two or three times. But sometimes I’ll call a president by his last name only. I do that with ALL presidents.

       Everyone already knows he is the president.

       And I did write a disclaimer at the very beginning. Please read more carefully before making disparaging remarks. Thank you.

36. Poorly and perhaps unadvisedly done.
    I’ve unsubscribed.

37. Amen! It’s way too large and ostentatious in relation to our beautiful White House. I still don’t understand how one president can make these decisions unilaterally.
    To the person who referenced Obama’s basketball court. There is no legitimate comparison with this project and converting an existing tennis court to a basketball court by putting up a net and painting new lines.

38. Thank you for a thoughtful, design oriented article. Whenever a structure is altered by adding a huge expansion that is significantly bigger the original, it needs very careful expert design to keep it from overwhelming the original which is not the case here. And the original here is a historic building owned by the people.
    I’ve read comments here and elsewhere that other Presidents made changes to the White House, but all were reviewed by architectural and historical committees. I am also concerned about the source of financing by businesses who likely expect favorable treatment by the government.
    And why is expressing a disagreement with something the government is doing being called TDS by supporters. We need to have thoughtful discussions in this country, it is what the country was founded on.

39. I do appreciate you weighing in on this, Miss Laurel. While I can see your concerns design wise, I’m not concerned as the taxpayers aren’t on the hook for this. Maybe this is the way we can get the West Wing done as well. That would solve the symmetry problem. I know you’re a classical purist, but a little 21st century architecture could jazz the place up a bit.

    That President Trump has the clout to get those that can afford this upgrade for “We The People” is marvelous! Mr. Trump is a builder after all, and I trust his judgement on what the needs are currently and in the future. If he thinks that Presidents need to be able to have seating for 1000 people for a state dinner, then we need seating for 1000 people. Period.

    I love what he has done in the Oval. Those that think it’s garish are seeing it under TV lighting. Which is just ghastly. I’ve recently seen photographs in its natural state and it’s lovely. And appropriate for the most powerful leader in the world’s office.

    We’ll just have to take a wait and see attitude. I’ve been in several of President Trump’s properties and they are very, very nice. Quality materials and very comfortable. These properties are not open to the public so you’d have to take my word for it.

    Thank you for your attention to this matter! ☺️

    1. Catherine,

       “Miss Laurel” is condescending. You may call me Laurel.

       All Americans are “We the People.”

       I like the oval office except do think the gold decals are a bit much.

       Other properties with his name on them are irrelevant and President Trump didn’t design the new building.

       And no, the problem will not be solved unless there is careful planning.

       THIS IS MY POINT.

       grrrr

40. Thank you Laurel for a very timely and thoughtful post. One reader wrote above: ”Balance and a commitment to making the whole greater than the sum of its parts are what makes anything good, both in design and in life!” I totally agree! Change is never without complexity and collaborative thoughtful design can help us to stay focused on the end goal and the greater good.
    I love your design of the White House and your thoughtful design of the conversation. I forwarded this to everyone I know that cares about design …. And plants. I was hoping someone found the plants a new home. Once again I learned and was inspired.

41. My god…who knew such ignorant horrible people follow you!!

42. Thank you for this post. I enjoyed the historical information, accepted protocol, and possible alternatives to designs. I am not happy with doing away with the East Wing. To me, our presidents live in the White House as renters. They do not own it. The owners are the American people. Renters neither demolish nor do they build on the property that is not theirs.

43. I could not agree more with Janine Gallo’s comment here. (I tried to reply directly to hers, but your site doesn’t allow it…maybe just you are allowed to reply directly to a subscriber). You started off with a significant disclaimer on what is allowed and not allowed, yet as your post progressed, your own bias was increasingly evident. “A bloated, ostentatious, egotistical ballroom that has no place being on the property with our cherished White House” is what you chose to end the post. I would just appreciate more honesty from you in the initial disclaimer, allowing your more conservative subscribers to choose not to read this post. The ballroom may be too big and I will agree with many of your points of design flaws stated. I can’t understand how you feel private donor funding angers you. It’s hard to imagine what you would have posted had it been a taxpayer funded project. Oh well….it is your blog and I’ve enjoyed it going on 15 years or so. I’m sorry to leave as a subscriber, but I am no longer tolerant of anyone on social media that needs the clicks, purchases, followings, etc. to rely on my support. All my very best to you Laurel!

    1. Hi Judy,

       I think it should be a taxpayer funded project, but again, that’s irrelevant to the discussion. And I made it perfectly clear at the beginning of the post.

       I am copying and pasting this comment after every one that went against the rules.
       Nobody said that to me when I lambasted democrat, Michelle Wu’s Copley Square disaster. My comments are NOT politically motivated. I think we do need a new building, however, I don’t like the way it has been handled and I don’t like the building.
       I do like the Rose garden pavers and love the drainage border. I understand the need to get rid of the soggy grass and the way they did the pavers which are not concrete, but look to be white granite, in the diamond pattern is lovely. I would’ve done a subtle harlequin pattern with a slightly darker stone. The patio could use some potted plants. For some who don’t realize, the roses were not touched. They are all still there.
       Jackie’s decades old garden was demolished. I am more upset about that than I am the building.
       I want to be clear that I’m an exceedingly proud AMERICAN CITIZEN. I don’t know the difference between conservative and liberal because both sides have issues. So, I agree with some philosophies from both parties. Some, I strongly disagree with. However, I am not one to put others down if they believe differently.
       I will let your comment stand. But comments after this one that came at 1:27 this afternoon, that are making disparaging shaming me for something that is not true, they will be deleted. There is absolutely no political bias or innuendo. That is you, reading into my critique and inferring something in your own mind.
       And I refuse to be put into a situation where I’m defending myself. That is why I wrote the disclaimer which several people haven’t heeded.
       Readers are allowed to talk about buildings, not say things like they’re a nasty person, or whatever. I gave President Trump the benefit of the doubt. If you can’t understand the distinction, then there’s nothing more for me to say.
       For God’s sake. I have one child who is so liberal, I fondly call him a Communist. The other one is a die-hard red-hatted MAGA who did a counterprotest in Asheville, NC a few months ago. He was interviewed on the news.
       I love and support both of my sons and respect their views and hope they respect mine.
       This is what I want for the good people of our country. I want RESPECT, even if we DISAGREE.
       Thank you, all.

44. Thank you for expressing your opinion openly and allowing comments!!

    My feeling, with no facts, is that all presidential wives have probably weighed in on renovations of buildings. The First Lady is of European descent where gold is used extensively in architecture.

    Each President has renovated something with their mark on it. So it is with this President. I for one have no idea of the constraints or details that supported making this change. I’ll wait to see the end results. Change is always disruptive. But generally necessary to keep up with our ever changing world.

45. Well done Laurel. I agree and
    I don’t think anyone with any sense of taste or design would agree this will look good. It’s appalling and sad to see the Mar a Lago aesthetic destroying our lovely White House.

46. Interesting post! Like your thoughts

47. Many presidents have made major alterations to the White House without all the outrage and at the taxpayers expense. The White House is grand, it deserves a grand ballroom which looks to be in keeping with the architecture of the building. If any other president added this ballroom, I’m sure there would have been accolades for him. Laurel, although you claim that this post isn’t political, it clearly is as you have your subscribers weighing in who are suffering from TDS. Posting a blog on this subject was a lapse in judgment which will probably cost you half of your subscribers including me. You should have sat this one out.

    1. Janine,

       Did you not read the beginning of the post? It is not a lapse in judgment, and I resent your shaming me. How would you like it if I publicly humiliated you? This is a post about DESIGN. I do not know what TDS is.

       I am copying and pasting this comment after every one that went against the rules.
       Nobody said that to me when I lambasted democrat, Michelle Wu’s Copley Square disaster. My comments are NOT politically motivated. I think we do need a new building, however, I don’t like the way it has been handled and I don’t like the building.
       I do like the Rose garden pavers and love the drainage border. I understand the need to get rid of the soggy grass and the way they did the pavers which are not concrete, but look to be white granite, in the diamond pattern is lovely. I would’ve done a subtle harlequin pattern with a slightly darker stone. The patio could use some potted plants. For some who don’t realize, the roses were not touched. They are all still there.
       Jackie’s decades old garden was demolished. I am more upset about that than I am the building.
       I want to be clear that I’m an exceedingly proud AMERICAN CITIZEN. I don’t know the difference between conservative and liberal because both sides have issues. So, I agree with some philosophies from both parties. Some, I strongly disagree with. However, I am not one to put others down if they believe differently.
       I will let your comment stand. But comments after this one that came at 1:27 this afternoon, that are making disparaging shaming me for something that is not true, they will be deleted. There is absolutely no political bias or innuendo. That is you, reading into my critique and inferring something in your own mind.
       And I refuse to be put into a situation where I’m defending myself. That is why I wrote the disclaimer which several people haven’t heeded.
       Readers are allowed to talk about buildings, not say things like they’re a nasty person, or whatever. I gave President Trump the benefit of the doubt. If you can’t understand the distinction, then there’s nothing more for me to say.
       For God’s sake. I have one child who is so liberal, I fondly call him a Communist. The other one is a die-hard red-hatted MAGA who did a counterprotest in Asheville, NC a few months ago. He was interviewed on the news.
       I love and support both of my sons and respect their views and hope they respect mine.
       This is what I want for the good people of our country. I want RESPECT, even if we DISAGREE.
       Thank you, all.

48. p.s. Paul Goldberger (former architecture critic for NY Times) was interviewed about the East Wing demolition recently and brought up a good point — why do state dinners have to be at the White House? He said there were a variety of venues around D.C. and referenced having attended a dinner at The National Building Museum, which I’d not heard of.
    So I googled it and the NBM main hallway is quite grand, even magnificent, and is used as a setting for a variety of events.

    It occurs to me that state dinners are held at Buckingham Palace, even though none of the Royals live there – King Charles lives at Clarence House. So if space for a thousand guests is needed, why not utilize other built spaces in D.C.?

    Laurel, I’m guessing you already know a lot about other grand venues in D.C. and it would be interesting to read about them. I love it that you educate your readers with generous research, and also enjoy reading the comments section – another learning and perspective arena.

    1. Hi Terry,

       You get my vote for “best comment.”

       I couldn’t agree more since the guests won’t be staying, or at least the vast majority of them, at the White House.

49. This was a great time to comment on the unsolicited new ballroom. I agree with every point you make and then some. This is not grand architecture and I am so happy that you too can’t fathom why so many smooshed together windows. The house of the American people deserves better.

50. The real issue with hosting large events and dinners in a tent (with Porta potties) is not the expense, it’s the security. Imagine the difficulty of maintaining a security perimeter around a tent, in the dark, in bad weather in order to protect not only the US president, but also foreign leaders. Add in the new threat of armed drones and it becomes untenable. So either we accept that very real risk, or we limit the number of guests to the number who can fit in the existing space, as you said, about 80 to 250 people, which I presume includes various security details. That’s a pretty small venue space; it couldn’t fit a medium to large wedding. The latter requires that we accept the strategic limitations that puts on Presidents, current and future, to use dinners and gatherings as a diplomatic tool. Louis the 14th built Versailles, in part, as a similar diplomatic strategy to bring various factions together, in one place.

    I spent a fair amount of my career hosting large corporate events—I still have PTSD from it. I will say that a good portion of the space, like all event venues, will be devoted to kitchen facilities, storage rooms, multiple restrooms, office space, AV rooms, utility rooms, coat rooms, that are needed to host large events.

    So there is, I think, a real need for a secure, large facility. I will also add, that the US Park Service, while it maintains the National Registry of Historical Places, doesn’t have authority over the White House building.

    Yes, the White House is a revered, historic building. It is also a working building that must meet high functional demands to keep our Federal government running. As any historic preservationist will say, a balance must be met between the two competing interests.

    I will also add that the quality of architecture being produced today is horrible. They have completely lost the ability to design beautiful buildings. If the ballroom is not as it could be. the Obama Library is a blight. Project management in the Federal government is nothing to brag about. The Federal Reserve building renovation costs have escalated from an estimated $1.9 billion in 2019 to $2.5 billion this year, and is 2 years behind schedule.

    1. Hi Caryl,

       The Obama library is hideous. And wow on the Federal Reserve building renovation. What a nightmare!

51. Hi Laurel,
    What a great post. As always, very informative.
    Maybe the ballroom could also be used to store his new 747 jet.

52. Since Laurel has respectfully requested we stick to facts, I thought this should be added.
    The actual cost for the basketball conversion was minimal and is not publicly documented, but sources suggest it was very low. It involved drawing new lines and adding hoops to the existing court.
    Who paid: President Obama and Michelle Obama paid for the conversion themselves.
    Misinformation: The $376 million figure that is sometimes cited is a false claim. That amount was for a separate, much larger project to repair the White House’s aging infrastructure, and funding was approved by Congress before Obama took office.

    1. Hi Carol,

       This is correct. I verified it. The basketball court still functions as a tennis court which I think was a great idea for future administrations.

53. I was born when Truman was still president – so have lived through many administrations since, and do not recall any press about WH renovations (including the basketball court) until this year when the Rose Garden received a patio so people didn’t have to stand in the grass. I like Laurel’s suggestions. I also am reserving any opinion until the new East Wing is completed. When I Googled the key function of the East Wing, the results were that the key function is official and social functions: The East Wing , whose design was sponsored by Mrs Truman, was built to accommodate formal visitors, hosts large social gatherings, and served as a visitor entrance for public tours. Personally I think given how important entertaining foreign dignitaries is to our country, having an appropriately sized ballroom makes sense, more so than tents on the lawn. And funded by private donations even better.

54. So when is a good time? After the hundreds and hundreds of millions have been spent and it will cost more hundreds of millions to correct the damage that’s been done? No matter where you stand politically, you ought to have more respect for our shared architectural heritage.

55. I appreciate your input. You are a purist and have way more knowledge than the average American on this subject so I get where you are coming from. The room does seem too large in my opinion and your suggestions concerning the style of windows and columns is spot on. As far as the president’s decorating style i.e. the oval and all the gold I am not a fan. I prefer the classic colonial look, but that’s me and I am not president. I wish when you mentioned the cost that it is not at the citizens’ expense and is still less that the 350 million dollar basketball court that served the vanity of one former and very few others was on our backs as were most of the other previous renovations. For that I am very grateful and to point out a positive the new building will also house bathrooms for guests so dignitaries will no longer be subjected to Porto potties and the offices that were in the west wing are also included in the new building. As far as the size I can only say that when our presidents visit other countries in Europe, the Middle East and Asia the venues are quite large and very grand by comparison and I think we are way behind in that respect and what we offer is pretty cheesy as the leaders of the free world. I think in the end this build which has created some to lose their minds is only a moment in time and there will soon be another “scandal’ to take its place. I feel way too much time is being wasted on it. Life is short let’s focus on the really important things in our own lives.

56. “Gilding the Lily!” With the Oval Office embellishments and proposed overly sized and ornate ballroom, this idiom seems relevant. Much can eventually be removed and repainted, but I pray the NTHP, the NCPC, and the CFA can find a way to insist the building be more architecturally appealing.

57. Discussion is on point, perfectly timed, and much appreciated Laurel. I am currently building a house in Texas and the city rejected the plan because it was 121 square feet too large for the lot. The solution? We had to move one wall by 6 inches and another by 5 inches to meet city guidelines and then start the approval process completely over. Wish this had been the case for this East Wing monstrosity.

    BTW, thanks so much for your keen insight; you share it so well and we are kindred spirits.

58. Where do we entertain in the meantime?

    Shew . . . Let me say no matter which “side” you agree with, there are too many apparent questions regarding the entire project.
    You wrote everything I have been thinking about.

59. Thanks for saying this. I totally agree. This has been a hard year for me seeing all the needless destruction going on. Thanks for your clear words.

60. There should be an architect’s oath similar to ” first, do no harm”. I with they would have called you Laurel for a professional design.

61. I would have chained myself to one of those columns on the day of demolition if I had been allowed on to the grounds.

62. She is a design blogger writing about design. I actually think this was very informative without being overtly political.

63. … fillers and fat transfers … I couldn’t have said it better.

    After the Jackie Kennedy rose garden was turned into a concrete slab, I had a terrible feeling this design project was only going to get worse.

    One assumes the thousand chair seating is going to be used for state dinners only, but it’s likely the space will double as an entertainment venue. Pay per view anyone?

    In any event, what can be built can be torn down. Uh, remodeled.
    Laurel, you may not want to publish this, but I feel better for having said it.

64. I have never sent a response via e-mail before
    However–you have hit the nail on the head(no pun intended).
    EVERYTHING you said is on target.
    It brought more tears to my eyes reading it.
    Sooo sad to see what’s happened to “our”White House.
    Thank you for writing this article.

65. If we don’t discuss this now, then when??
    I agree 100%. Even with my untrained eye, I can see the scale is totally off.
    Thank you for pointing out the other design blunders. Well thought out and in depth analysis.
    How sad. How very sad for We, the American people.

66. I’ve never commented before but now I must, thank you so much Laurel for writing about this surreal set of actions and plans. The fact that “this room, this entire building is not in the spirit of our founding fathers” is horrifying, but also I share your the deep offense you take at just how bad the design is. Balance and a commitment to making the whole greater than the sum of its parts are what makes anything good, both in design and in life! This is criminal. Thanks again for your reliable integrity and talent, you were my favorite blogger before and now there will never be any competition for that title in the future!

67. One only needs to look at the current decor of the Oval Office to agree 100% with Laurel’s assessment.

68. My comment was supposed to say “WITH the existing building.” Autocorrect strikes again!

69. If there were such a thing as agreeing “1,000 %” that’s how much I’d agree with you. Maybe more. While it’s true that it seems more space was needed, this proposed ballroom is gaudy, ostentatious, and completely out of scale either the existing building.

70. In keeping with your request to stay within the parameters of non-political or one-sided remarks, I will say that I would like to agree with you 100%.
    ( my tongue is now bleeding from biting it! )

71. While I appreciate your opinion and concerns, I think this is a very current controversial topic, and this was probably not a good time to discuss it.

72. WWJD?
    What would Jackie do?