ENR’s coverage of the razing of the East Wing of the White House and its planned replacement with a 90,000-square-foot ballroom drew attention to the design and oversight issues of the historic structures, particularly because the Trump administration did not pre-announce the full extent of the demolition. Regulatory documents reviewed by ENR Online Editor Bryan Gottlieb showed that as of Sept. 4, no filings had been made with the National Capital Planning Commission. Previous administrations have voluntarily presented large projects for the review of this entity and the Commission of Fine Arts. Although not legally binding, this preservation framework has guided White House alterations for decades, even for privately funded work such as the ballroom. The full extent of the work only became apparent less than 24 hours after demolition of the east wing began. “What amazes me the most is that this is all happening so quickly, with no time for any experienced or competent professional to actually do what is needed on paper before starting work,” Charles F. Bloszies, a San Francisco architect-engineer and author, told ENR. Other comments, edited for space and clarity, include:
▶ Scott Wynne posted: I disagree with most of what Charles [Bloszies] says in this article. Many projects with which I participate [design-build] delivery for a wrong reason. In this case, it’s perfect. The president has three years to complete the project or it may never happen. Design-build cuts red tape and speeds up construction. Trump fully understands the historic aspect of the project. Good job!! Going down any path referenced in this article would kill the project. In addition, I have carried out JV projects with [ballroom team contractor Clark Construction] and I have complete confidence [the team] will deliver a project that exceeds expectations.
▶ Trainee engineer published: What does the ENR writer mean when he says Bloszies “spent four decades working at the intersection of design and engineering?” Surely any ENR writer knows that design is an engineering discipline, right? Does it cross itself?
▶ Patrick posted: It seems pretty good that no president since the early 1950s has had any vision as a builder. Among other things, our collective refusal to build anything of public value (eg modern passenger rail) has resulted in a private skyscraper developer becoming president.
▶ Gilles Brussieres published: … as usual, if our current president does anything, speed bumps will be on the way. Many reforms were carried out by previous presidents without problems.
