The full scope of President Donald Trump’s privately funded ballroom complex project became apparent less than 24 hours after demolition began on the East Wing of the White House.
FEdral officials and several media reports confirmed on Oct. 23 that the entire east wing structure is being razed, roughly doubling the estimated cost of the project and heightening questions about oversight, preservation and the process.
As ENR previously reported, Trump’s July 31 announcement described a $200 million, 90,000-square-foot addition designed by McCrery Architects and designed by AECOM, with Clark Construction Group as the general contractor.
At the time, officials said the ballroom would be located adjacent to the east wing and structurally separate from the executive residence.
New statements and on-site activity now point to a much more aggressive plan. Two administration officials told NBC News and Reuters that “the entire East Wing” will be demolished within days and replaced with a new structure connected to the ballroom.
RELATED
White House lounge construction progresses as oversight gaps emerge
The president told reporters in the Oval Office on Oct. 22 that the cost of the project would now be about $300 million, without elaborating on the increase.
No site design or plan has been submitted to the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC). Chairman Will Scharf, who also serves as White House staff secretary, reiterated this week that demolition “can proceed without” NCPC approval because the panel’s jurisdiction only begins with “vertical construction.”
His statement confirms that significant work has progressed ahead of formal design review, leaving the timeline for rulemaking uncertain.
The change from partial addition to full rebuild fundamentally alters the engineering profile of the project, from facade connection to full rebuild, requiring new foundations, load bearing systems, and mechanical, electrical, and plumbing redundancy for a live, high-security facility.
Charles F. Bloszies, founder of his San Francisco-based firm, is known for projects like this one
690 Folsom Street and the San Mateo County Navigation Center. Author of the influential book
Old buildings, new designs (Princeton Architectural Press), Bloszies is recognized for advancing the integration of architecture and structural engineering in preservation and adaptive reuse projects.
Image courtesy of CC SULLIVAN
The East Wing substructure overlaps the White House service tunnels and hardened communications corridors built during the Truman Reconstruction, a condition that will likely complicate base isolation and vibration control.
“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,” said Charles F. Bloszies, a San Francisco architect-engineer known for 690 Folsom Street and the San Mateo County Navigation Center, and author of Old Buildings, New Architectural Press (Prince). “There’s a process that’s been respected for a long time and it’s been totally stomped on.”
Bloszies described the White House’s mechanical and utility systems as a human circulatory network, where “centrally located components (the hearts and brains of the buildings) serve the entire complex.”
He said that “in order to cut the appendix, you need a plan to restore those arteries and nerves: utilities, data and air handling systems.” Based on the speed of demolition, he added, it is “unlikely that any such study will be done.”
He also challenged official claims that demolishing the east wing was necessary for structural soundness.
“This can save you time,” he said, “but it’s certainly not true that you can’t harden existing structures and bring them up to current code performance. We do it all the time.”
Bloszies, who has spent four decades working at the intersection of design and engineering, said the administration’s rationale bypasses normal review and “removes the guardrails meant to protect historic and civic architecture from impulse and ego.”
Requests for comment to AECOM about the engineering limitations were not returned by press time. McCrery Architects and Clark Construction Group also did not respond to ENR’s request for comment.
Conservation rules ignored
Conservation and architecture groups have condemned the move. Even before this latest development, the Society of Architectural Historians released a statement noting the unprecedented nature of the project.
“This will be the first major change to the exterior of the White House in 83 years,” said the group, which called for a federal review “before irreversible work begins.”
Secretary of the Interior
Rules for rehabilitation
These ten standards guide rehabilitation and new construction at historic properties, including federally owned sites like the White House.
- A property should be used for its historic purpose or a new use that requires minimal change in defining characteristics.
- The historic character of a property must be maintained and preserved; avoid removing distinctive materials or altering defining characteristics.
- Each property is a record of its time, place and use; avoid creating a false sense of historical development.
- Changes that have acquired historical significance must be maintained and preserved.
- Preserve the distinctive materials, features, finishes and examples of craftsmanship that characterize the property.
- Repair rather than replace deteriorated historic features; if replacement is required, match the old one in design, color, texture and materials, supported by documentation.
- Use chemical or physical treatments only when appropriate and with the mildest possible means; avoid treatments that damage historical materials.
- Protect and preserve existing archaeological resources; if disturbed, undertake mitigation.
- New additions or alterations should not destroy historic materials; The new works must be differentiated but compatible in material, size, scale and proportion.
- New additions and related new construction should be undertaken so that, if removed, the essential form and integrity of the historic property remains intact.
Source: US National Park Service, Department of the Interior Rehabilitation Regulations.
The American Institute of Architects, in a letter to the White House Preservation Committee, reminded officials that all work must “strictly adhere to established federal processes for public buildings” under the Interior Secretary’s rehabilitation standards.
H. Ruth Todd, director of Page & Turnbull in San Francisco, said the White House’s work “is in direct conflict with the rules, regulations and expectations that govern federally owned historic buildings when changes are proposed.”
He added that under the Secretary of the Interior’s rehabilitation standards, “new additions to historic structures should be reversible and distinguishable, and not adversely affect features that have acquired historical significance in their own right, such as the East Wing of the White House.”
Under the Presidential Residence Act, the White House complex is managed by the National Park Service (NPS) and managed by the Executive Office of the President.
Although Section 107 of the National Historic Preservation Act exempts the Executive Residence from the mandatory Section 106 review, Executive Order 11593 (1971) still directs federal agencies to consult with the United States Department of the Interior before altering historic structures.
Because there is no precedent for a privately funded company to change the footprint of the White House, the Executive’s authority to do so unilaterally remains in question.
Previous administrations have voluntarily joined the review process through the NCPC and the US Commission of Fine Arts, a precedent that preservation advocates say is being ignored. The White House complex is located entirely within a federally owned park.
No lists of subcontractors, procurement records, or environmental assessments have appeared in federal databases. Bloszies said this opacity undermines public confidence in civic architecture.
“Architects have a duty to society, not just to our clients, to make sure we’re not putting a stain on the urban fabric,” he said. “Great projects can come from public review, but skipping those steps rarely ends well.”
A symbol altered forever
The president’s decision to expand the project to $300 million without an appropriation from Congress has further blurred the lines of federal oversight, he said. Bloszies, who added: “And now Congress isn’t even in session, so there’s no effective check.”
He called the move “unprecedented and deeply troubling,” warning that what was once framed as an architectural improvement now risks becoming a monument to personal vanity.
The demolition of the East Wing, originally added under Franklin D. Roosevelt and renovated during the Truman Reconstruction, transforms the project into one of the most complex and high-security reconstructions in United States history.
Beyond its symbolism, the company is now presented as a testament to engineering control, preservation compliance and political restraint within the nation’s most heavily guarded work zone.
“He’s going overboard and doing whatever he wants,” Bloszies said of Trump. “What bothers me the most is that the buildings that are being demolished have no voice for themselves … and it’s unfair that anyone can act on them without accountability.”
