Trump sued by preservationists seeking reviews and congressional approval for ballroom project

ThatRobGuy · Sunday at 9:37 AM

Stopped_lurking said:
Yes, especially if it included removing the earlier building. I don't think any of those who approved of that, have a problem with Trump destroying parts of the building due to them being dead. Also the political opposition back then probably thought it was a good idea due to the construction of the underground bunker beneath it, it was war after all.

Likewise, as I mentioned before, there's practical security reasons for being able to host larger government social functions on WH property as opposed trying to secure public venues like hotels, etc...

And the motion picture industry paying for renovations because "landing a screening at the White House family theater" was a valuable marketing tool is the sort of the "private influence" people are voicing concerns about now, correct?

And the cost of those projects weren't even made public.

And it seems as if there were some similar criticisms tossed around with prior renovations going back to Jefferson.

Per TheHill:
The East Wing’s razing was met with criticism both by preservationists and by more than half of the American public. In death, the East Wing has come full circle, as it received criticism at the time of its birth during early 1800s.

President Thomas Jefferson, who served two terms 1801-09, first ordered the installation of colonnades on both the eastern and western sides of the White House, according to the White House Historical Association

Newspaper editorials slammed the additions, while the opposing Federalist Party suggested that the colonnades reflected “aristocratic tendencies” from Jefferson, the WHHA described.

But the colonnades remained until 1866 and were then replaced in 1902, under President Theodore Roosevelt’s overhaul of the White House, to allow for a main entrance for social events

Under FDR's 1942 renovations, controversy stemmed from it being completed with World War II unfolding in the background. Republicans called the construction wasteful and accused FDR of using the White House makeover to improve his image.

This all sounds like very familiar... like history repeating itself just a tad.

durangodawood · Sunday at 9:43 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
In September, the commission chair clarified during a public meeting of the NCPC that the approval process is only required for construction, not demolition or site preparation work.

Given that Clark Construction is handling the construction work, and Shalom Baranes is handling the architectural designs and plans

Federal | Shalom Baranes Associates, Architects

These buildings feature innovative responses to vital programmatic needs, integrating sustainability and security measures that meet current Federal standards.

www.sbaranes.com

(they've done design work for the Pentagon, Treasury Building, and Red Cross historic headquarters)

I think it's pretty safe to say that they know what they're doing.

Shalom Baranes Associates won the American Institute of Architects' Institute Honor Award for Regional and Urban Design for their design for Burnham Place,[3] a $7 billion development of the air rights over the Amtrak and CSX railway tracks behind the Washington Union Station railway terminal.[4]

The firm is also the architect for two apartment buildings which are part of the $1 billion CityCenterDC development. SBA also assisted with the master plan for the development.[5][6]

On December 4, 2025, it was announced that Shalom Baranes had been selected by President Donald Trump to pick up the design of the new White House State Ballroom that will replace the demolished East Wing of the White House complex.[7]

That's a non response to the question you responded to.

The architects qualifications to manage a project like are not at issue. (Maybe their design sense is, but thats a whole other thing.)

The question was about, basically, how does such a massive new building that changes the whole character of the White House site get underway with no design/planning review process at all. This is not how buildings get approved: at the sole discretion of one man. As for me, I dont know what the planning review and public input process is supposed to be in this case. I think the details of the lawsuit will reveal that.

Stopped_lurking · Sunday at 9:49 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
Likewise, as I mentioned before, there's practical security reasons for being able to host larger government social functions on WH property as opposed trying to secure public venues like hotels, etc...

Trump was in Pennsylvania last weekend (?), I think you are overstating the benefit.

ThatRobGuy said:
And the motion picture industry paying for renovations because "landing a screening at the White House family theater" was a valuable marketing tool is the sort of the "private influence" people are voicing concerns about now, correct?

And the cost of those projects weren't even made public.

And it seems as if there were some similar criticisms tossed around with prior renovations going back to Jefferson.

Per TheHill:
The East Wing’s razing was met with criticism both by preservationists and by more than half of the American public. In death, the East Wing has come full circle, as it received criticism at the time of its birth during early 1800s.

President Thomas Jefferson, who served two terms 1801-09, first ordered the installation of colonnades on both the eastern and western sides of the White House, according to the White House Historical Association

Newspaper editorials slammed the additions, while the opposing Federalist Party suggested that the colonnades reflected “aristocratic tendencies” from Jefferson, the WHHA described.

But the colonnades remained until 1866 and were then replaced in 1902, under President Theodore Roosevelt’s overhaul of the White House, to allow for a main entrance for social events

Under FDR's 1942 renovations, controversy stemmed from it being completed with World War II unfolding in the background. Republicans called the construction wasteful and accused FDR of using the White House makeover to improve his image.

This all sounds like very familiar... like history repeating itself just a tad.

Yes, but is this an argument against preservation? If people have thought it was bad idea then and now, perhaps it is a bad idea?

ThatRobGuy · Sunday at 12:28 PM

Stopped_lurking said:
Yes, but is this an argument against preservation? If people have thought it was bad idea then and now, perhaps it is a bad idea?

The issue is that people selectively think it's a bad idea.

So the republicans bashed the movie theater getting put in the East Wing expansion in the 40's (claiming that it was just a way for FDR to bolster his image)
Politicians and pundits then bashed the revamp in the 80's due to private money being used for potential profit motives.

But in the end, it would appear they all ended up getting some use/enjoyment out of it.

Reagan used it quite a bit

Clinton used to use it for Superbowl parties

Obama got some some use out of it after some upgrades were made to be able to screen 3-D movies

A renovation getting done in 1942, and then getting redone as recently as the mullet era... The preservation argument just seems like it's being leveraged because it's the convenient one.

Basically, people clutching pearls due to the prospect of covering a bunker with a ballroom instead of a first lady's personal office and a 3-D capable movie theater doesn't seem like any sort of genuine "historical appreciation.

That "we have to preserve historical buildings and not change anything" can go to certain extremes as well.

The pushback from historical preservation groups in Canada is the reason why their "official state residence" isn't even livable anymore.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/24-sussex-prime-minister-trudeau-ottawa-1.6949710

Stopped_lurking · Sunday at 12:56 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
The issue is that people selectively think it's a bad idea.

How do you know that? I would believe that those arguing for preservation today would have argued for it in 1942, as well. Do you mean to say that The National Trust for Historic Preservation was started in 1949 so that it could be used against Trump in 2025, that is some real forethought.

ThatRobGuy said:
So the republicans bashed the movie theater getting put in the East Wing expansion in the 40's (claiming that it was just a way for FDR to bolster his image)
Politicians and pundits then bashed the revamp in the 80's due to private money being used for potential profit motives.

But in the end, it would appear they all ended up getting some use/enjoyment out of it.

Reagan used it quite a bit

Clinton used to use it for Superbowl parties

Obama got some some use out of it after some upgrades were made to be able to screen 3-D movies
View attachment 374486

A renovation getting done in 1942, and then getting redone as recently as the mullet era... The preservation argument just seems like it's being leveraged because it's the convenient one.

Basically, people clutching pearls due to the prospect of covering a bunker with a ballroom instead of a first lady's personal office and a 3-D capable movie theater doesn't seem like any sort of genuine "historical appreciation.

That "we have to preserve historical buildings and not change anything" can go to certain extremes as well.

Sure, but why is this one of those cases?

ThatRobGuy said:
The pushback from historical preservation groups in Canada is the reason why their "official state residence" isn't even livable anymore.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/24-sussex-prime-minister-trudeau-ottawa-1.6949710

Who argued that parts of their "official state residence" should be tore down and built up but got stopped by preservationist? The article seems to couple it to not wanting to build a new house in a new location as it could be interpreted as the prime minister giving oneself a favor.

ThatRobGuy · Sunday at 8:03 PM

Stopped_lurking said:
Who argued that parts of their "official state residence" should be tore down and built up but got stopped by preservationist? The article seems to couple it to not wanting to build a new house in a new location as it could be interpreted as the prime minister giving oneself a favor.

I linked a few of the articles before discussing it from Canadian news outlets (one of which being the CBC), here's another

24 Sussex is 'our line in the sand,' say restoration supporters | Heritage Ottawa

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:

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?

durangodawood · Sunday at 8:52 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
.....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?....

Once again you are missing the point, even though I alerted you to it earlier.

This lawsuit and the ire it represents isnt about the "idea being floated". Its about Trump moving ahead with the construction process: doing the demolition and it appears even site prep, at his own sole discretion with none of the planning process or public input thats normal everywhere before ground is broken on something of this scale and consequence.

Stopped_lurking · Sunday at 11:13 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
I linked a few of the articles before discussing it from Canadian news outlets (one of which being the CBC), here's another

24 Sussex is 'our line in the sand,' say restoration supporters | Heritage Ottawa

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?

It is a preservation society that has brought forth the suit. Personally, I find the proposed interior looking tacky and the size ludicrous (compared to the main house and the west wing). I guess at least some other do as well, regardless of any political leaning.

ThatRobGuy · 2025-12-15T07:25:55-0600

durangodawood said:
Once again you are missing the point, even though I alerted you to it earlier.

This lawsuit and the ire it represents isnt about the "idea being floated". Its about Trump moving ahead with the construction process: doing the demolition and it appears even site prep, at his own sole discretion with none of the planning process or public input thats normal everywhere before ground is broken on something of this scale and consequence.

I responded to that point before, linking information about what the NCPC chair had stated.

In September, the commission chair clarified during a public meeting of the NCPC that the approval process is only required for construction, not demolition or site preparation work.

durangodawood · 2025-12-15T09:33:03-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
I responded to that point before, linking information about what the NCPC chair had stated.

In September, the commission chair clarified during a public meeting of the NCPC that the approval process is only required for construction, not demolition or site preparation work.

From the article:

Asked questions about the lawsuit, White House spokesman David Ingle responded with a blanket assertion that Trump is within his “full legal authority to modernize, renovate and beautify the White House — just like all of his predecessors did.”

Thats the heart of the lawsuit: does this enormous and consequential building require any sort of review process before construction? The president, per above, says no. Sensible observers may roll their eyes at the new Lincoln bathroom marble remodel horror, while they acknowledge its the presidents prerogative. But a whole new massive building that completely changes the White House site context? Sensible people are understandably shocked that the pres has sole discretion over such a thing with no review process at all.

essentialsaltes · 2025-12-16T08:19:00-0600

Trump administration says White House ballroom construction is a matter of national security

The administration's 36-page filing [in response to the lawsuit] included a declaration from Matthew C. Quinn, deputy director of the U.S. Secret Service, the agency responsible for the security of the president and other high-ranking officials, that said more work on the site of the former White House East Wing is still needed to meet the agency’s “safety and security requirements.”

wing2000 · 2025-12-16T08:42:59-0600

National security.....(I suppose one could argue that feeding Trump's ego is a matter of national security)

Trump sued by preservationists seeking reviews and congressional approval for ballroom project

Part of the IT crowd

re Member

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

re Member

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

re Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

Trump administration says White House ballroom construction is a matter of national security​

E pluribus unum

Similar threads

Trump administration says White House ballroom construction is a matter of national security