The American public volubly aired its opposition to US president Donald Trump’s plans to build a $400m, 22,000-sq.-ft ballroom on the site of the demolished East Wing of the White House in an hours-long online meeting of the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) on Thursday (5 March). Led by White House staff secretary Will Scharf, who previously worked as Trump’s personal lawyer, the commission is the final procedural hurdle the project needs to clear before construction can begin.
While the NCPC was expected to approve the ballroom designs this month, following the greenlight the project received last month from the Commission of Fine Arts, another body staffed largely by Trump loyalists, it decided to delay its vote until its next meeting on 2 April, in light of the thousands of public comments that were submitted and the dozens of speakers who had signed up to testify against it. Among them were architectural experts, historians and regular citizens, who thoughtfully and movingly condemned the ballroom project based on its size, cost and rushed timeline, and the indelible impact it will have on one of the most historic properties in the country.
Dedicating their entire afternoon session to the East Wing discussion, the NCPC commissioners first heard a staff report recommending the project’s approval, and another presentation from architect Shalom Baranes. Both focused on how visible the East Wing will be from different points around the White House grounds and wider capital landscape, and touched on the changes made to the design, including the removal of a pediment above the south portico.
When it came time for the commissioners to ask questions about the project, only a few did, including businessman Arrington Dixon, who is a mayoral appointee, and Phil Mendelson, who is the chair of the DC city council. Dixon asked about handicap accessibility in the building, pointing out that “we might have a president who may reach a point where he’s in a wheelchair”, and whether there had been any thought of putting solar panels or a helicopter landing on the building’s roof. Mendelson, meanwhile, asked questions about the size of the ballroom, which he pointed out far exceeded industry standards, and the imbalance it would bring to the White House grounds.
In answer, Baranes said the added square-footage was needed to accommodate press and security in the ballroom. “We have to have space for the showing of the flags, military marching in. There has to be additional space for a temporary stage that can be brought in and out,” he said. “We broadened the access aisles so in the case of an emergency the president and other people attending can be moved out of the ballroom much more quickly.” The height of the ballroom, which is more than three-storeys and requires a double-height colonnade to be attached to the Executive Residence, was less easily justified, and Baranes admitted that the ornate south portico, with its towering Corinthian columns and grand stair that did not actually connect to the interior, was “an aesthetic decision”.
Responding to Mendelson’s questions about the imbalance the new East Wing would create, compared to the more modestly sized Executive Residence and West Wing, Baranes (at Scharf’s suggestion) drew on historical records that show the first US president George Washington intended the White House to be symmetrically framed by two “slightly smaller buildings” on either side—what are now the Treasury and the Executive Office Building—which the architect said ended up being considerably larger than the White House. “That intent of creating symmetry and balance was basically abandoned at that point,” he said.
Instead of asking any questions, commissioner Paul Schaefer, who represents the Department of Defense, took the opportunity to voice his support for the project, saying “the White House should grow with the nation”, and that the new East Wing would serve as a “tribute” to the country’s position “in terms of global leadership”. He also compared the size of the ballroom to those in historic European royal residences, like the Winter Palace in St Petersburg, the Hofburg Palace in Vienna and the Louvre Palace in Paris. “On a global arena, it’s still fairly modest in size,” Schaefer said of the plans for Trump’s ballroom.
Before opening the meeting to public comments, Scharf added that “at every stage of its development, every new addition, including the initial construction of the White House, has been roundly criticised, often for reasons of size and scale”, but that these architectural additions were later celebrated. He also said that many of the public comments received “extend far beyond the scope of this commission’s statutory jurisdiction” and recommended the commissioners focus on “matters that fall within our purview”.
Critical consensus
The first public comment came from Carol Quillen, the president and chief executive of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which has filed a lawsuit against the East Wing project. A judge recently declined to stop construction at the site based on the Trust’s original complaint, which questioned presidential authority, but said it could refile its lawsuit. In her statement, Quillen urged the commissioners “to engage seriously” with the tens of thousands of comments submitted by the public.
“This process exists for a reason. It enables you to draw on the collective wisdom of many, and not just that of one man or faction,” Quillen said. “Listening to the views of the American people and incorporating the best of our ideas will result in a better overall project as it builds a shared sense of purpose on a contentious issue.”
A recent rendering of the East Wing ballroom posted to the National Capital Planning Commission website Courtesy National Capital Planning Commission, Shalom Baranes Associates, Architects
Rebecca Miller, the executive director of the DC Preservation League, noted that the White House interiors were originally designed “to convey a sense of proportion and intimacy, which are vital to the building’s charm and historical significance”. The new East Wing on the other hand would be “disproportionately large and impersonal and will detract from the dignified atmosphere that has characterised presidential events for centuries”, she said, adding that “this stark shift in design reflects a troubling impulse directed towards grandiosity”. She also pointed out that “250 years ago, the people of America rejected monarchies, and we don’t have palaces for that particular reason”, reminding the commissioners that the federal government already has a classically inspired, palatial ballroom sited in the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium, which is “mere blocks” from the White House. “It accommodates 1,000 guests and was recently restored at great expense to the taxpayer,” Miller noted.
Alison Hoagland, a professor emerita of historic preservation and the author of six books on US architectural history, voiced her concern about the damage the new connecting colonnade will cause to the Executive Residence. “The exterior stone walls date back to the original construction of the White House in the 1790s, unlike much of the rest of the building,” she said, “the loss of this fabric would be tragic.”
Wendy Evans, president of the National Academy of Design, said “architecture is a creative act that should not be used as propaganda”. She added: “The White House embodies the soul of the United States, our freedoms. Architecture at its best, is an act of optimism. Let the White House be optimistic, not about power, but about welcome. It is the home open to all, not a stage set for presidential power, privilege or pageantry.”
Jim Steitz, who identified himself as “a plain old American citizen”, said the architecture of the capital was intended to evoke “empathy, mercy, humanity”, but that the current administration wanted to replace that with “a gilded edifice to one man’s ego”. Another member of the public, Terry Burstein, asked the commissioners: “Why are you giving me the opportunity to speak, when it has already been decided the ballroom will be built?”
Matthias Graut, a retired teacher and high school administrator, called the East Wing “gaudy, garish, architecturally offensive” and “grossly, expensively unnecessary”. He suggested that the billionaire donors and corporations that have given funding towards its construction “redirect their gift to benefit our fellow citizens who are suffering in some way through poverty, persecution, health care inequity and especially housing market inequality”.
Representing Common Cause, a non-partisan grassroots watchdog organisation, Abigail Bellows said the ballroom project “raises serious ethical concerns about influence peddling and corruption” since many of the corporations who have provided funding are either under federal investigation or competing for government contracts. “That is a massive conflict of interest,” she said. “Let’s not kid ourselves, these donors aren’t doling out millions to bankroll the president’s pet project out of the goodness of their heart. We all must ask: what do they expect in return?”
Argument and alternate proposal
In the only instance of tempers flaring during the meeting, Jon Golinger, an advocate for Public Citizen, a nonprofit consumer advocacy organisation, said that “the fix is in for this project and this vote”, calling on the presidential appointees on the commission, including Michael James Blair, who serves as White House deputy chief of staff, Stuart Levenbach, who is the associate director at the Office of Management and Budget, and Scharf, to recuse themselves from the vote on the project and resign.
Scharf jumped in to respond and called Golinger’s questioning of his credentials “frankly, insulting”, saying he was qualified to serve on the commission because he “practiced extensively in the area of real estate law” and previously served as policy director to the Missouri governor, where he was involved in “a substantial rewrite of that state’s historic preservation tax credit programme”. After a brief squabble, Scharf ended any further comments from Golinger, saying: “If you want to sue me, I’ll see you in court.”
The meeting ended on a somewhat surreal note, with an impromptu suggestion of an alternative design for the East Wing site, from two speakers appearing jointly from Caracas, Venezuela: Antonio Manzano and the architect Roberto Barreto.
“Our vision is to offer a futuristic proposal,” Manzano said, presenting a small model of a geodesic structure that he called a “Freedom Dome”. “It is important to note that this volume will generate a global and cosmic alignment and orientation with a universal energy network,” Manzano said. “There will be a torch in the centre, symbol of enlightenment, wisdom and knowledge that will always support freedom… All men of goodwill will feel inspired visiting Freedom Dome to reach higher goals for humankind.”
