I linked a few of the articles before discussing it from Canadian news outlets (one of which being the CBC), here's another
heritageottawa.org
Noting, that no Prime minister as lived in it since 2015 because it doesn't accomplish certain needs.
Ironically enough, the CBC and Ottawa Citizen articles I linked before made mention specifically about having the ability to hold larger events.
The author of the latter piece referred to the fact that the Prime Minister not having better house with better amenities (and having to actually live somewhere else) was a "national embarrassment"
There was nothing controversial about Michelle Obama's "modernizations" to the State Dining room and Family Dining room.
Times change, residents want a different look, or some more modern amenities, etc...
The "historical preservation groups" still complained (they always do), but republicans did the same pearl clutching when she did that. Pretending to have a profound respect for preserving the history, when we all know it wasn't really about that.
This current iteration about "preserving history" also comes across as a little hollow due to the fact that the people complaining the loudest about tearing down the east wing, were the same people who were advocating for tearing down other historical things.
A DC city commission (in conjunction with Mayor Bowser) was pitching things like this in 2020:
View attachment 374521
Where was the progressive ire when ideas like removing or relocating the Jefferson Memorial or Washington Monument were being floated?
"We need to rip down a Ulysses Grant statue, because he married into a slave owning family" (Despite being a Union general)
Yet, making alterations to a building (
that was built with slave labor) is suddenly "whoa, this is history, you can't change that!"
C'mon, isn't it a case where sometimes the most obvious answer is the right one? Which is, it's Trump doing it, so that's why they're pretending to be all bent out of shape about it?