Urgent! March 4th Deadline for Public Comments for the WH East Wing Project!

There is an addendum to this post to clarify several things. So, we’ll call it part 2. If you wish to skip to that part, you can click the link below.

 

Part 2 Begins Here

 

Hi Everyone,

I was all set to continue with the renovation shopping list (here it is, if you missed part 1), but just now, I happened to see this on my Instagram.

It’s an announcement that a vote will be taking place regarding the New White House Ballroom extension.

Many of you will recall that last October, I wrote two blog posts concerning the sudden demolition and the proposed new structure. (They will be linked to shortly.)

Soooo, if any of you would like to submit your own comment to the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), you have until

March 4th NOON ET – get it in. Sorry for the short notice; however, at least I found out before it’s too late.

 

Below is my Comment to the commission.

 

If this is important to you, I’ll be including the links to where you can send in your own comments. If you’d like to use my statement as a base, please feel free to do so.

 

***

 

Dear Members of the NCPC,

 

I am a classical interior designer based in Boston, Massachusetts, with more than thirty years of experience working with historically informed classical architecture and interiors. To begin, I would also like to thank the Commission for the careful attention you are giving to this important matter concerning the White House. As you know, it is one of the most historically significant examples of classical architecture in the United States.

I was deeply concerned by the demolition of the existing East Wing without meaningful oversight, and even more troubled by the currently proposed design for the new ballroom addition. It appears to be dramatically out of scale with the existing architecture and the historic character of the White House.

 

Last October, I wrote two detailed articles for my interior design blog examining the proposal and the broader historical context of the White House.

 

These posts include historical research as well as my own conceptual alternative that respects the classical principles on which the building was founded:

The White House Ballroom– Good Idea or a Colossal Mistake? (blog post #1)

The Irreplaceable Loss of JKO garden and EW of the White House (blog post #2)

 

In my research, I also revisited Caroline Harrison’s late 19th-century proposals for improving the White House grounds.

 

Below is the plan view for the bottom elevation, above.

 

 

While her ideas were ambitious, they point toward a more thoughtful approach to expansion than the oversized ballroom currently under consideration.

 

It is my understanding that the West Wing is also insufficient for modern needs. In response, I developed a schematic plan (attached as a PDF and shown in the first article) proposing two balanced auxiliary wings. Each would maintain a footprint no larger than the White House itself and would be architecturally complementary to the original structure.

 

In response, I developed a schematic plan (attached as a PDF and shown in the first blog post) proposing two balanced auxiliary wings.

 

Each would maintain a footprint no larger than the White House itself and would be architecturally complementary to the original structure. I hope the Commission will take a moment to review the attached plan, as it illustrates how additional capacity could be achieved while preserving the historic proportions of the White House complex.

 

This approach preserves the essential axial relationships of the site, including the important sightlines toward the Capitol.

 

 

The three circular forms shown on the South Lawn are symbolic of the three branches of government while also referencing the central White House and its two flanking wings. The design also incorporates a large circular terrace and fountain. This could be used for outdoor events, with or without a tent.

 

One question that deserves careful consideration is the actual programmatic need for such a large ballroom.

 

Aside from inaugurations, are there events that genuinely require seating for more than 500 guests? My research indicates that state dinners in recent decades have typically been smaller than that. If there is no practical need for a 1,000-seat banquet hall, it is difficult to justify constructing one.

Beyond questions of scale and function, there are also practical concerns. A room of this magnitude raises significant issues of acoustics and usability. If such a space is frequently only partially occupied, it risks becoming uncomfortable for the guests. Professional acoustic design would be essential.

 

Most importantly, from an architectural standpoint, the current proposal fails to respect the principles of classical design that define the White House itself.

 

Classical architecture is fundamentally rooted in proportion—relationships derived from nature and often expressed through mathematical ratios such as the golden mean (1.618). When these principles are ignored, the result inevitably feels discordant with the historic structure it is meant to complement.

By contrast, a thoughtful design developed by a classically trained architectural firm—one that respects proportion, scale, and historical context—could produce an addition worthy of the White House and capable of enduring for centuries.

I appreciate your consideration.

Sincerely,

Laurel Bern

Boston, Massachusetts

 

***

 

This is the primary link, where you can make a public comment to the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC).

 

However, please be sure to view their fantastic webinar that explains the issues very clearly. (It’s below) I am heartened that the commission mirrors my concerns. However, I also learned some new things, such as that the proposed connecting hallway does not go to the ballroom as it was stated earlier.

 

 

The ceiling heights on all floors are absurdly high. The ballroom is 23 feet high. The 12,000 square foot KITCHEN has a ceiling height of 14 feet. Classical or not, those numbers do not make any sense.

 

The website to make public comments is here.

If you’d like to virtually attend the meeting, it can be viewed here on March 5, 2026. https://www.ncpc.gov/live/

Thanks, guys. I think the commission is on the right track, and I am grateful for their careful oversight of our treasured building.

xo,

 

***Please check out the recently updated HOT SALES

 

 Also, if you’re doing some shopping on Amazon, please click this Amazon affiliate link or the graphic below.

 

Thank you so much!

I very much appreciate your help and support!

 

*********************************************************

Part 2 Begins Here

 

Addendum to this post in response to Gaye’s comment, for the most part, and some other comments as well.

 

Hi Gaye,

Thank you for your lovely comment. I always value your input; however, I need to clarify and reiterate a few important points.

It’s the law that the public is consulted. I am well aware of the limitations of the East room, which holds no more than 200 seated individuals. Not that I expect everyone to reread the posts, but that was addressed in the original posts last October.

 

Let’s look at the stats again.

 

The east room in the executive residence is 2,800 square feet and can seat up to 200 people for dinner. Given 200, that is 14 square feet per person, which is one foot less than the industry standard of 15 square feet per person that the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is recommending.

 

They have proposed a much more modest ballroom of 15,000 square feet to host 1,000 people. This will reduce the footprint by about 30%.

 

My question is, aside from inaugurations, how often would a venue be required that would need to host 1,000 people?

 

I’m asking this important question because there are venues nearby that can and have hosted larger groups. The White House does not have 1,000 guest beds, so virtually all of the 1,000 guests will be staying at a hotel elsewhere, in any case. Has this been discussed? If not, why not?

 

Still, to be clear, as I have been chastised because people have assumed (most likely because they’re not reading carefully) that I’m okay with folks having a formal dinner outside under a tent.

 

NO, I am not; not unless it’s a casual picnic in daylight hours.

 

I think a far larger space for state dinners, etc. is a splendid idea, especially now that the historic east wing was razed.

 

***Please note that state dinners with the current administration are exceedingly rare. In over five years, there have only been two state dinners. In addition, the largest tent outside was 13,450 square feet. That was in 2009, in the early part of President Obama’s first term.

 

The point is that this project requires exceedingly careful planning and examination, and that has not happened.

 

The building as proposed has numerous, and egregious problems that could be easily corrected. However, from an aesthetic sense, the over-riding issue is that the current design is FAUX classical design and is not complementary to the elegant, ONE “star of the show,” which is the executive residence. While not brutalist, it is also not classical. Although the president has the right idea, someone who has the authority, and I do not know for sure who that is, does not understand the inherent philosophy held by our founding fathers and the classical idiom.

 

It is imperative that the historical classical tenets of the White House are maintained while still providing for the current needs of modern administrations.

 

I certainly hope we can all agree on that.

Yes, the Obama library is hideous. Beyond hideous. However, what’s done is done. My hope is for the powers that be to avoid making another mistake with our beloved historically significant and protected White House.

I do believe it is not only necessary, but quite possible to build an exquisite new wing that complements the executive residence, provides adequate space for large events, and also addresses future changes to the west wing.

 

Most people who’ve been reading my posts know my #1 rule for any kind of design.

 

There must be a cohesive, comprehensive plan before any project is commenced. This building will be permanent, and it is vital that the most careful planning is implemented.

Most of you are kind, but many people have chastised me for writing about this important design issue because you’re conflating it with something else.

Please, always, be kind to everyone.

 

Re: the hearing on the 5th. I watched about two-thirds of the hearing of the Capital Planning Commission, and most of that was the public testimony. I was in tears at one point, because dozens of people, both pros and non-designing citizens, felt without hesitation that the proposed building was out-of-place, in terms of scale and design. Everyone who spoke felt the same as I do, and if it’s even possible, some were even more passionately against the currently proposed building.

 

The planning commission was overwhelmed with our emails.

 

There were tens of thousands of them. So, they are doing the right thing; they are going to read all of our comments and will be making a decision in April. That means we can keep writing them. If this is important to you; it’s not too late to save the integrity of our beloved White House!

There will be a change to our treasured building– BIG changes, but these changes must be in keeping with the historic nature of the White House and in the spirit of what our founding fathers wanted. Of this, I am quite sure.

Thank you.

I love you all!

xo,

 

***Please check out the recently updated HOT SALES

 

 Also, if you’re doing some shopping on Amazon, please click this Amazon affiliate link or the graphic below.

 

Thank you so much!

I very much appreciate your help and support!