On Monday, behind hastily installed plywood fencing, an excavator began ripping the portico off the East Wing of the White House. At that point, onlookers wondered about the extent of the hatchet job. Stephen Colbert said the building looked “like a rotisserie chicken your dog got into.” By Thursday, the scope became clear: The East Wing was gone, despite past promises that it would remain when realizing a new 90,000-square-foot ballroom proposed by President Trump. On Friday, someone mentioned that Trump would name the ballroom after himself. Trump is our country’s developer president, and now he is presiding over the construction of a massive amenity suite for the White House. What else would you expect?
The act raises many red flags. The East Wing historically housed the Office of the First Lady; it seems nothing was done to protect the history of women’s contributions to the presidency. By bulldozing the structure, Trump is effectively erasing women from the history of the White House. Apart from an upcoming Halloween appearance, where will Melania Trump work? She has not commented on the destruction, though a former aide, speaking for herself, said the situation “breaks [her] heart.” What about the security of the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, a bunker beneath the East Wing where Trump retreated during the start of the George Floyd protests?
The demolition of the East Wing is likely illegal, as it proceeded without proper approvals from entities like the National Park Service during a government shutdown. But legality doesn’t seem like a concern for the current administration. Like so many Trump operations, facts and precedent were set aside in pursuit of power and personal enrichment. At first, $250 million was the listed price; this week, the number ballooned to $300 million, and Trump floated that he had received $350 million in donations, which may exceed the construction cost. (Perhaps the numbers are the result of runaway price increases in construction, as Anjulie Rao wrote in Dwell.) Will Trump skimp on build quality and opt for dictator chic Home Depot finishes, as he did in the Oval Office? And if that’s the case, will he pocket the savings? If so, it will be further evidence that Trump is using the presidency as a get-rich-quick scheme.
One of the selling points was that the project won’t cost taxpayers any money; instead, companies like Amazon, Apple, Caterpillar, Coinbase, Comcast, Hard Rock International, Google, HP, Lockheed Martin, Meta, Microsoft, Palantir Technologies, T-Mobile, and Union Pacific Railroad, in addition to private individuals and foundations, have written checks in exchange for presidential access. This sends the message that our government is for sale, and supports the idea that Trump is treating the role as a cash machine. Another win for conservative values.
AEC Feedback
It took the AIA several days to release a statement about the demolition, but it arrived with direct language: “We call on decision-makers to halt any further irreversible alteration of the historic fabric, to publish full documentation of the project’s scope, budget, schedule and procurement path, and to reopen meaningful engagement with the professional community and the public.” What action is there to take? “Ask your members of Congress to investigate destruction of the White House,” apparently.
In a more measured tone, on Tuesday before the extent of the demolition was fully realized, the National Trust for Historic Preservation called for work to stop: “We respectfully urge the Administration and the National Park Service to pause demolition until plans for the proposed ballroom go through the legally required public review processes, including consultation and review by the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts, both of which have authority to review new construction at the White House, and to invite comments from the American people.”
The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization said in a press release it is “calling for immediate transparency and strict compliance with federal safety laws,” in light of the demolition, as the original structure probably contained asbestos. This would involve the White House and contractors disclosing an asbestos inspection prior to demolition, notification to work, containment and safe removal of asbestos material, measures to ensure worker safety, and the proper disposal of hazardous waste.
Outrage spread quickly, which resulted in cascade of side-quest news stories: Federal workers were told not to post photos of the wreckage; Clark Construction is in charge of the new building, its demolition subcontractor ACECO’s online presence was tanked by bad Yelp reviews and enough activity that it took down its website, which now just states its slogan—“redefining demolition”—and that the site is, ironically, under construction; and salvaged dirt was trucked away to a nearby golf course Trump has considered rebranding.
The demolition answers the question about the right-wing care for traditional or classical styles: It all goes out the window when the time is right to seize power. No one from the National Civic Art Society or similar realms batted an eye when a historic piece of American history was summarily wrecked. The fact that the structure, designed by 1930s White House architect Lorenzo Winslow, was respectful in keeping with the White House’s neoclassical expression didn’t save it. The White House offered a timeline of alterations to the residence as justification for its project to add a ballroom, but kicked off the text by mocking criticism of the effort: “In the latest instance of manufactured outrage, unhinged leftists and their Fake News allies are clutching their pearls.”
Our Cultural Shitshow
The problem is not the renovation prompted by the supposed need for an event space with increased capacity, but rather the dismissal of proper procedure to alter what is one of the most recognizable symbols of American democracy. The images of the rubble, some even with American flags in the background or foreground, offer a perfect metaphor for what many believe the Trump administration is doing to the country. Basically, taking a wrecking ball to tradition and then assembling a slapdash new build.
In a masterful sleight of hand, the demolition has flooded the news cycle for the week, distracting Americans from construction of ICE’s holding facilities and its deployment in our cities; three more attacks on alleged drug boats, including two in the Pacific Ocean; continued aggression by Israel after agreeing to a ceasefire; a government shutdown with no end in sight; and widespread pushback through actions like last weekend’s No Kings march, which saw millions of Americans turn out to peacefully protest.
Trump has harnessed a populist movement and bent it for personal gain, both his and that of business owners whose companies over time created the conditions for Rust Belt resentment that birthed the MAGA ideology. The ongoing style battle about classicism is in part due to the race to the bottom for construction cost, which eliminated unions and generations of craft knowledge, outsourced fabrication to sites around the world, and promoted the use of petrochemical products over healthier options. America’s capitalist drive is what has caused the country to be littered with sad buildings occupied by unhealthy citizens, not some modernist sensibility about flat roofs. Larry McMurtry had it right half a century ago when, thinking about Texas, he wrote that “one sometimes wonders if Bowie and Travis and the rest would have fought so hard for this land if they had known how many ugly motels and shopping centers would eventually stand on it.”
What Does This Mean for Architects?
The demolition of the East Wing is yet another reminder of how acts of design and construction can be political instruments bound up in cultural forces. Architecture is so often less about creative expression and more about power. In news clips, Trump is seen clutching renderings and plans of a scheme by McCrery Architects that drew widespread condemnation when it was announced. (Even Peter Eisenman hated it.) During a meeting this week with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Trump shared a model that confirms the ballroom’s volume will overwhelm the existing White House complex. Architects ought to clearly realize their role and be able to see through the individual circumstances of their work to the larger machinations behind the need to commission architecture in the first place. This might mean saying no to questionable clients and turning away from the business-forward trajectory of the profession since the first AIA antitrust lawsuit in 1972.
Trump is both an individual and a symbolic figurehead for the overall MAGA movement. Steven Bannon, in conversation on October 23 with The Economist, said Trump is a “vehicle of divine providence,” while noting that he’s “very imperfect,” before advocating that the president gain a third term, which is currently prohibited by the Constitution’s 22nd Amendment.
Despite Trump behaving like he owns the White House, he is merely its tenant; the residence is the people’s house. One can hope that his lease will be up in 2028. Until then, principled resistance in the name of common decency is valid, like with the Democrats who refuse to budge on healthcare costs to fund the government. Through memes, AI, and cruel language Trump and his allies have shown that no regular method of critique will make any difference—even these words. What could actually change their trajectory? For many, it looks like things will get worse before they get better, so some humor along the way will lighten the load: As Gary Shteyngart wrote, “Frivolity and absurdity are kryptonite to authoritarians who project the stern-father archetype to their followers.” If we are to slow the rising tide of spray-tan totalitarianism, the resistance ought to be hilarious.
→ Continue reading at The Architect's Newspaper
