How Trump demolished the East Wing of the White House to build a ballroom

Washington: Donald Trump could hardly believe his luck. The longtime real estate developer had spent decades dealing with zoning restrictions, environmental reviews, community boards and local politicians. But when it came to building a ballroom in the White House, he would have none of that.

“I said, ‘How long would the process take?’ Because I’m so used to zoning,” Trump said recently at a White House dinner for wealthy corporate donors who contributed to the ballroom. “They said, ‘Sir, you can start tonight.’ I said, ‘What are you talking about?’ ‘You have zero zoning conditions, you are the president. ‘ I said, ‘You’ve got to be kidding me.’ You mean I can actually do something I really want?

Trump’s amazement has now become that of Washington and the world. In just one week, and without warning, bulldozers tore down and demolished the historic East Wing of the White House, which had stood in its current form since 1942. The townhouse was irrevocably changed.

Anyone who has dealt with development authorities – whether in New York or London, Sydney or Melbourne – would have to ask themselves the same question: how can the president demolish a third of the White House without a single planning permit?

Many commentators have seen the demolition of the East Wing as a metaphor for the Trump presidency: launching a wrecking ball into American institutions in pursuit of power and glory, without regard for due process.

But, like other aspects of Trump’s agenda, it is American institutions themselves – through their complex, vague governance structures and their reverence for the president – ​​that have allowed this to happen.

“The legal status of the White House is extremely strange,” says Neil Flanagan, a Washington architect and public historian. “There’s really nothing like it, other than maybe the Capitol. It’s a completely federal jurisdiction. When you do federal projects, they get the permits themselves. The system has operated on a system of trust and rules. This president is more than happy to break all trust and rules.”

The process began in July, when Trump removed Joe Biden’s appointees from the National Capital Planning Commission, which oversees zoning and construction in Washington. Instead, he installed not experts but overtly political operatives, including, as president, his assistant and White House staff secretary, Will Scharf.

Trump watchers would recognize Scharf as the man who regularly delivers executive orders to Trump in the Oval Office and outlines their contents. Along with him, Trump appointed the White House deputy chief of staff, James Blair, and an assistant to the powerful Office of Management and Budget, Stuart Levenbach. They all kept their day jobs.

At the time, there was speculation that Trump could be using the commission to pressure Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell for a costly renovation of the Federal Reserve headquarters. writing in politicalMichael Schaffer reflected that “it seemed like an odd use of senior officials’ time,” noting that the commission’s next meeting dealt with issues such as “lighting plans for a Smithsonian building and guidelines for protecting pollinating insects.”

But Trump soon revealed his plans to build a $200 million ($305 million) White House ballroom (now $300 million or $350 million, he says), and it became clearer why it might be useful to have friendly lieutenants running the NCPC.

This was a pet project of Trump’s first term, and not without reason. As he frequently points out, the White House lacks a large event space for state visits and the like. They are usually held outdoors, using the rose garden or tents on the south lawn, and when it rains, people have to “splash” in the humidity.

Sensitive to the building’s historical importance, Trump promised that the ballroom would not touch the existing building. This was difficult to comprehend given the scale of what he was planning.

But there was little fanfare about the project on Sept. 4 during an NCPC public meeting in downtown Washington. Scharf, presiding over the debate in a small, drab room that resembled a council chamber, pointed to a “misleading” article in Washington Post which, he claimed, mischaracterized the agency’s role.

“This commission does not have jurisdiction – it has long denied having it – over demolition and site preparation work for federal buildings on federal property. What we are dealing with is essentially construction, vertical construction,” Scharf said.

“Any assertion that this commission should have been consulted sooner than it was – or will be – is simply false and represents a misunderstanding of this commission’s role in that project.”

That was a harbinger of what was to come. Six weeks later, the White House began tearing down the East Wing, without any official intervention from the NCPC.

When asked about this last week, Trump’s press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, said the White House had no legal obligation to consult the commission on demolition, only on “vertical construction.”

He was quickly asked the inevitable question: Does that mean the president can tear down anything he wants without oversight? Can you demolish the Executive Residence? Will he be able to demolish the Jefferson monument?

Leavitt’s answer was essentially: yes. “It’s not the president who presented that legal opinion,” he said. “That’s a legal opinion that the NCPC has held for many years. It’s written down, so we can give you that background and that research if you want.”

This leader requested that document from the White House and it was forwarded to the NCPC, which is closed due to the government shutdown. The White House did not respond to a follow-up request.

Some former NCPC members also disagree with that assessment. Preston Bryant, who chaired the commission for nine years and was appointed by former President Barack Obama, told CNN: “The demolition element is inherent to the overall project. The demonstration is not separate from the construction. It is part of it.”

It is true, however, that the White House (along with the Capitol building and grounds and the Supreme Court) is exempt from the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act, which would otherwise mandate an impact assessment for any sale or alteration of a historic federal building.

The convention has ensured that past presidents generally sought that advice. “What we’re seeing is that once someone breaks those social norms, the system really breaks down,” Flanagan says.

The White House says it will present construction plans for the 8,300-square-meter ballroom to the NCPC. But critics say demolishing the east wing in advance changes the dynamic. Flanagan calls it “gambling drive,” made famous by 20th-century New York promoter and powerful businessman Robert Moses. Get the ball rolling and others will have to fall in line. Seek forgiveness instead of permission.

Priya Jain, chair of the Society of Architectural Historians’ heritage conservation committee, notes that the NCPC is now much more limited in the changes it can recommend.

“They can’t tell them to go back and try to fit this project into the existing east wing anymore,” he says. “All of those design options that existed previously are now gone because there’s a hole in the ground.”

Jain says the dance hall could have been placed underground or somewhere else. “This idea that it’s the tent or the ballroom is so false. As any design professional knows, there are multiple ways to do this. This wasn’t the only option. So where is that work, that analysis and that design process?”

For his part, Trump promises an “appropriate” design that will fit the existing building (or what remains of it).

“It’s going to be very much in line with the White House,” he said at the Oct. 15 donor dinner. “A new thing [in construction] It’s building a super modern building next to an old building, and I think that’s good, but I don’t have the courage to do that with the White House. “It’s good for a lot of places, it’s not good for here.”

Trump’s initiatives did not convince Legal Secretary Diana Vidutis, who looked through a fence at the demolition site after work on Monday afternoon.

“I am appalled by what was done under the cover of night and without permission,” she said. “The president of the United States does not own the White House. He is a temporary resident. He has no right to do what he just did, and that bothers me a lot.”

Charging

Vidutis says the demolition of the east wing is also anti-woman. “It was the first ladies who had their offices there. It was also where we all went into the White House to buy Easter eggs and Christmas decorations. So, personally, we felt lost. And there’s no reason there should be a Costco-sized ballroom next to the White House.”

Get a note directly from our foreigner correspondents about what’s making headlines around the world. Subscribe to our weekly What in the World newsletter.