- Jun 13, 2015
- 10,448
- 10,041
- 48
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
Off cause after finishing his ballroom he'll have to demolish and rebuild the rest just to make it proportional.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Attaching a 90,000 square foot structure to a 55,000 square foot main house is visually unbalanced and certainly not attractive. I'm not sure how anyone sees this move as an improvement.Off cause after finishing his ballroom he'll have to demolish and rebuild the rest just to make it proportional.
Doesn’t seem wise to start the project before it is funded. I guess the tax payers will just be expected to pick up the tab if Trump can’t pay it.People do it all the time. It's called a "donation" (dow·nay·shn)
Because the money hasn't come in yet.
Also, why does a ballroom need to be nearly twice the size of the main structure? Not to mention the cost of an event fill to capacity.Attaching a 90,000 square foot structure to a 55,000 square foot main house is visually unbalanced and certainly not attractive. I'm not sure how anyone sees this move as an improvement.
View attachment 371961
One can see demolishing and rebuilding the west wing is almost inevitable.Attaching a 90,000 square foot structure to a 55,000 square foot main house is visually unbalanced and certainly not attractive. I'm not sure how anyone sees this move as an improvement.
View attachment 371961
That little building in the middle needs to be replaced with something suitably majestic.Attaching a 90,000 square foot structure to a 55,000 square foot main house is visually unbalanced and certainly not attractive. I'm not sure how anyone sees this move as an improvement.
View attachment 371961
Because the main structure isn't very big? It's 55,000 square feet, across three floors, which may be big for a house, but is pretty modest for any sort of office building. I've never been inside, but I've walked by several times and, while it looks nice, it's size is pretty underwhelming. Based on what I could see in the diagrams Trump held up, they're planning to be able to seat 1,080 people, which, again, is pretty big for a private function, but modest for any sort of corporate event, much less something involving heads of state. My office Christmas party could probably get that big if everybody showed up.Also, why does a ballroom need to be nearly twice the size of the main structure? Not to mention the cost of an event fill to capacity.
People do it all the time. It's called a "donation" (dow·nay·shn)
Because the money hasn't come in yet.
Yeah, my main concerns stem from Trump's involvement (his aesthetic tastes, the solicitation of private funding and Trump's history of misusing funds) and the seemingly rushed process that appears to have skipped the permitting process entirely. Given that the plans have changed substantially from when it was first announced (increase in size, changing from an East Wing addition to a full replacement of the East Wing), it seems unlikely that the plans have been fully vetted and approved.I think this will wind up being a nothingburger visually.
Oh sure. I wouldn't be surprised if the funding never materialized and he left office with it half-finished and stalled, or just a big hole in the ground.Yeah, my main concerns stem from Trump's involvement (his aesthetic tastes, the solicitation of private funding and Trump's history of misusing funds) and the seemingly rushed process that appears to have skipped the permitting process entirely. Given that the plans have changed substantially from when it was first announced (increase in size, changing from an East Wing addition to a full replacement of the East Wing), it seems unlikely that the plans have been fully vetted and approved.
That's right. Look at the history of these private donations. It is extremely suspicious for them to be secret.You said you were concerned about "money laundering" in post #48 - as in illegally acquired money being used to build the ballroom, disguised as innocent, private donations.
It is simple oversight. Not a joke at all....Now you say verifying the legality of the donations is "simple oversight". What a joke.
Why would it be difficult to know who the donors are and how much they contribute? What happened to "the most transparent administration in history" ?It would be extremely difficult (not simple at all) to ask private donors on the origins of the funds they donated, just to check if they were legally earned or not. It seems way overboard. But that *is* the definition of money laundering, unless you meant something else.
Also, why does a ballroom need to be nearly twice the size of the main structure? Not to mention the cost of an event fill to capacity.
President Barack Obama's renovations to the White House included functional updates and interior design projects, some privately funded
. The changes were coordinated with First Lady Michelle Obama and were guided by designer Michael S. Smith.
Key renovations during the Obama administration:
- Tennis/Basketball Court: In 2009, a tennis court on the South Lawn was resurfaced and adapted for both tennis and basketball. As an avid basketball fan, Obama frequently used the court with aides and guests.
- White House Kitchen Garden:First Lady Michelle Obama spearheaded the addition of the Kitchen Garden on the South Lawn to promote healthy eating.
- State Dining Room: A three-year refurbishment was completed in 2015. Updates included:
- A custom-woven rug with maple leaf and wreath motifs.
- Striped silk window treatments in peacock blue and ecru.
- New mahogany chairs inspired by historical pieces.
- Oval Office: The Oval Office was redecorated with contemporary design elements, including a new rug featuring quotes from Martin Luther King Jr., Theodore Roosevelt, and other American figures.
- Art and Decor: The Obamas brought in a significant number of contemporary art pieces on loan from museums. The collection included works by artists such as Glenn Ligon, Sean Scully, and Jasper Johns.
- Budget-Conscious Approach:The Obamas opted not to use the $100,000 in taxpayer money typically allocated for redecorating and instead used their own funds. They also borrowed art from museums and refurbished existing pieces to control costs.
- Source; Google
I don't know about the size, but the first announcement about this said they were going "to replace the current East Wing"...(increase in size, changing from an East Wing addition to a full replacement of the East Wing), it seems unlikely that the plans have been fully vetted and approved.
Doesn’t that mean this construction had to go through Congress to approve taxpayer funding?This actually was tax payer money.
That picture was taken during the Truman administration.